Santa Barbara City Council
April 30, 2024

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Sarah J. Knecht
Interim City Administrator
Mike Jordan
Mayor Pro Tempore
Mike Jordan
Ordinance Committee Chair
Tava Ostrenger
Acting City Attorney
Alejandra Gutierrez
Finance Committee Chair
Eric Friedman
Meagan Harmon
Oscar Gutierrez
Kristen W. Sneddon
City Hall
735 Anacapa Street
http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov
APRIL 30, 2024, 2:00 PM
AGENDA
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT: At the beginning of each meeting of the City Council, Finance Committee, or Ordinance Committee, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item not on the Council's agenda. Any person wishing to make such address should first complete and deliver a "Request to Speak" form prior to the time that public comment is taken up by the City Council. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not allowed during general public comment. The time allotted for general public comment at the beginning of the 2:00 p.m. session is 30 minutes.

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

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

HOW TO REMOTELY OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING
 Web: https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_JJS2kazqRyu2i83tshCkPw (Participation via Zoom)
 Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 894 2384 2846 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute)  Online Streaming: Council meetings are streamed live at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP  TV: Each regular City Council meeting is broadcast live in English and Spanish on City TV Channel 18 and rebroadcast in English on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays at 8:00 a.m., and in Spanish on Sundays at 3:00 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: If you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange. 04/30/2024 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 1 APRIL 30, 2024 AGENDA
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING - 12:00 P.M. IN THE DAVID GEBHARD PUBLIC MEETING ROOM, 630 GARDEN STREET (120.03)

1. Subject: Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal (550.01)
Recommendation: That Finance Committee:

A. Receive a report from staff with proposed changes to Downtown Parking’s funding model and the City Administrator’s recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2025; and
B. Recommend that Council approve the proposed changes, including changes to parking rates in City garages, surface lots, and on City streets within specified areas.

04/30/2024 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 2:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing Airport Patrol to Join Peace Officer Standards and Training [Ordinance Adoption] (560.01) Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.12.035 Regarding Airport Patrol Peace Officer Standards and Training Participation, and Accepting the Requirements of California Penal Code Sections 13510, 13512 and 13522, Relating to the Recruitment and Training of Peace Officers for the Airport Patrol.

2. Subject: March 31, 2024, Investment Report and March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report (260.02)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Accept the March 31, 2024, Investment Report; and
B. Accept the March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report.

REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

PUBLIC COMMENT

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS

04/30/2024 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 3

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

3. Subject: Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement] (180.02)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive an update on the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to the 900-1000 Blocks of State Street and 00 Blocks of Carrillo Street;
B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market License Agreement allowing the market to operate within the public right-of-way;
C. Approve a sole source contract with Meridian Rapid Defense Group (Meridian) in the amount of $251,607 for fabrication of the vehicle gate barriers and storage trailers and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the contract; and
D. Determine that the project is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15301 Existing Facilities, approve the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to the 900-1000 Blocks of State Street and 00 Blocks of Carrillo Street Update, and direct the filing of a Notice of Exemption in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15062.

AIRPORT DEPARTMENT

4. Subject: General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach (560.09) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive a presentation on the General Western Aero Hangers Project Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach; and B. Provide staff with direction on the next steps regarding public outreach for potential private funding for General Western Aero Hangars.

04/30/2024 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 4

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

5. Subject: Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations (650.05) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive an update on State Street Interim Operations; B. Discuss, evaluate, and direct pilot program activities; and C. Provide individual comments on proposed alternative configurations for the 1300 block of State Street.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS

6. Subject: Interviews for City Advisory Groups (140.05) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Hold interviews of applicants to various City Advisory Groups (Estimated time: 6:00 p.m.); and
B. Continue interviews of applicants to May 7, 2024 (Estimated time: 3:00 p.m.).

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER ENGAGEMENTS

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

MEETING AGENDA
DATE: April 30, 2024 Alejandra Gutierrez, Chair
TIME: 12:00 PM Eric Friedman
PLACE: David Gebhard Public Meeting Room Meagan Harmon
630 Garden Street
Sarah Knecht Keith DeMartini
Interim City Administrator Finance Director
Members of the public may participate in person or via Zoom. Zoom instructions are below.  Web: (Participation via Zoom) Register in advance for this webinar:
https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7teJDUHvSRm41SnDGwr8Wg Webinar ID: 859 8668 8412
Passcode: 072072
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
 Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 859 8668 8412 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute) REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to speak must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon when their item is called. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+Y for Windows and Option+Y for Macs. City staff will activate the speaker’s microphone when the speaker’s name is called. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves.

The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+M for Windows or Command-Shift-A for Macs.

For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Finance Department by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating the item on which they wish to speak.

ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION:

Subject: Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
Recommendation: That Finance Committee:

A. Receive a report from staff with proposed changes to Downtown Parking’s funding model and the City Administrator’s recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2025; and File Code No. 120.03
B. Recommend that Council approve the proposed changes, including changes to parking rates in City garages, surface lots, and on City streets within specified areas.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Downtown Team Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
RECOMMENDATION: That Finance Committee:

A. Receive a report from staff with proposed changes to Downtown Parking’s funding model and the City Administrator’s recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2025; and B. Recommend that Council approve the proposed changes, including changes to parking rates in City garages, surface lots, and on City streets within specified areas.

DISCUSSION:

Changes in Downtown business operations and customer parking patterns and use have substantially lowered Downtown Parking (DTP) lot occupancy as compared to past years.

Hourly fee increases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 and FY 2024 brought in revenue increases, but expenses have negated those increases as the costs to operate DTP continue to outpace revenues. The Downtown Parking Fund has operated at a deficit since FY 2020.

This has depleted reserves to below Council Policy levels, leaving only $2,972,911 total in Fund reserves, at the end of FY 2023.

The Downtown Parking Fund is projected to end FY 2024 with a $1,489,660 deficit, depleting total reserves to $1.5M. While the adopted FY 2024 budget did anticipate a $473K deficit, FY 2024 saw a small decrease in parking occupancy, resulting in a $700K revenue shortfall. Absent any changes, FY 2025 expenditures are expected to exceed revenues by $3.8M. This deficit would exhaust Downtown Parking Fund reserves and require a substantial General Fund subsidy to sustain facilities and operations.

In the adopted financial plan for FY 2024 and FY 2025, the revenue projections assume the elimination of the period of subsidized parking in the DTP lots and garages in FY 2025. While this change was not discussed in detail at the time, the budget presentation and submittal noted that FY 2025 would require a re-evaluation of the role of the subsidized parking period in DTP’s funding model. Accordingly, staff have evaluated the File Code No. 550.01
Finance Committee Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
April 30, 2024

established parking rate structure and have determined that significant changes are necessary to allow for continued operation.

The period of subsidized parking offered in DTP lots and garages has always been very popular with the public. Historically, around 60% of transactions in the lots and garages have been free, meaning only around 40% of customers actually pay for parking. This subsidized parking period is a major driver of customer behavior, as customers hurry back to their vehicles to avoid paying for parking, shortening their time visiting downtown businesses. At the other end of the spectrum, the high daily maximum charge of $33 also discourages customers from spending long periods of time visiting.

Compounding this inbalalance, the off-street paid parking lots must directly compete with free on-street parking, which is often located closer to destinations, making these spaces more desirable to customers. The availability and cost of parking on the streets impact customer usage of the off-street lots. This also impacts Downtown residents, whose neighborhoods are impacted by Downtown employees and visitors trying to avoid paying parking fees. Drivers circle blocks searching for free parking spaces, creating traffic, pollution, and noise.

Moreover, the City expends significant money on maintaining on-street parking, through cleaning and maintenance. The City can no longer sustain the parking system and the services it funds, such as State Street cleaning and maintenance, with a funding model that relies on revenue collected from fewer than 40% of the vehicles that use the system.

A new model is needed to ensure the financial sustainability of the Downtown Parking Program, improve parking turnover and availability for customers, decrease the cost of employee parking, and encourage visitors to stay longer.

Staff’s FY 2025 budget proposal seeks to implement a new model of funding and managing the Downtown parking system. This new model will generate adequate revenue to fund parking operations and maintain capital, distributes the cost of parking more evenly, and creates a parking system that serves all users and facilitates easy access to Downtown businesses and attractions.

A summary of the proposed FY 2025 budget is included as Attachment 1. Major changes to the status quo budget are as follows:

Finance Committee Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
April 30, 2024

Proposal Change Purpose
Revenues
Garages
60 Minutes Subsidized
$2.00/hour
$10 Daily Max
$109,204
 Encourage longer stays
 Move longer-term parkers into lots
with highest capacities
 Reduce the cost of longer stays
Surface Lots
15 Minutes Subsidized
$1.50/30 minutes
No Daily Max
$1,390,913
 Free up capacity in high-demand
surface lots
 Create turnover
 Discourage long-term parking
 Allow payment in smaller increments
to reduce cost of shorter stays
Street
15 Minutes Subsidized
$0.75/15 minutes
No Daily Max
$2,522,265
 Improve availability of highest-value
parking spaces for customers
 Make it easier for customers to
access businesses
 Create turnover
 Discourage long-term parking
Employee
Permits $70/month in garages ($742,260)
 Reduce the cost of employee parking
 Reduce employee demand for street
parking
Change in Revenue $3,280,122
Expenditures
Capital
Defer
 Amtrak Building Repair
 Revenue Control
System
 Garage Floor Joint
Repair
 Rey Road
Improvements
($2,100,000)
Create savings
Capital & Ops Implement Priced Street
Parking $1,052,048 Facilitate implementation of revenue strategy Change in Expenditures ($1,047,952)
Surplus/Deficit $429,930
Implementation
Priced On-Street Parking
This effort will represent the City’s first implementation of priced on-street parking. Fees will be collected on a “pay-by-plate” basis, wherein a customer enters their license plate number into a mobile payment app, mobile website, or self-serve kiosk, selects the duration of their intended stay, and pays fees due. Customers who choose to use mobile payment options will be notified when their time is due to expire and will have an opportunity to extend their stay without having to return to their vehicle. Fee collection will Finance Committee Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
April 30, 2024

be enforced by DTP staff who will use License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology to identify vehicles that have not paid and issue fee-due notices.

Street parking fees will be in effect from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, seven days a week, with possible seasonal adjustments for daylight. A map of the proposed priced parking areas is included as Attachment 2.

Implementation Plan
Downtown Parking staff are developing a robust implementation plan, which will be discussed and vetted through the Downtown Parking Committee, Ordinance Committee, and Council. Components will include:
 Ordinance: California Vehicle Code section 22508(a) requires cities to establish parking meter zones and fees by ordinance. Parking meter fees may be variable based upon criteria identified in the ordinance. Therefore, an ordinance mapping out the georgraphic area and fees is required.
 Outreach: DTP began the process of updating our funding and operational models based on community needs and feedback in the fall of 2023, when an online parking preferences survey was distributed to the community, and when staff conducted an intercept survey to better understand our customer base and customer behavior. Through the first three months of 2024, staff have conducted targeted outreach to downtown stakeholders, giving presentations, conducting small group workshops, meeting one-on-one with stakeholders, and working with internal stakeholders to develop and refine the recommended budget strategy for FY 2025.

Outreach will continue up until and beyond the rollout of priced street parking, with communications through media, signage, mail, social media, public meetings, and door-to-doordiscussions. Outreach will be targeted and tailored to key stakeholders, Downtown residents, employers, and Downtown visitors.  Procurement will consist of pay stations, signage, payment apps and mobile web services, LPR enforcement equipment and enforcement vehicles, handhelds for fee notice issuance, and safety equipment.
 Developing Policies and Standard Operating Procedures, to include changes to the Municipal Code, an updated policy for the usage of LPR data, and the development of standard operating procedures (SOPs). Staff will research peer cities to identify best practices.
 Staffing and training: DTP will begin by using existing, permanent staff to collect fees and issue fee-due notices for paid street parking. This will enable staff to develop and refine SOPs, determine ongoing staffing needs, and train more junior staff. Staff will also develop safety strategies, protocols, and hazard assessments.

Finance Committee Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
April 30, 2024

 Phasing of rollout, including location and installation of equipment, outreach, and initiation of fee collection.
 Mitigation: This proposal represents a major change to longstanding prices and practices that may cause significant shifts in the behavior of parkers. While some of these changes are desirable, others may have negative impacts. Staff will take steps to mitigate these impacts. Staff are planning a program of incentives for locals, similar to the recent Film Festival Pass, to give City residents opportunities to park Downtown at discounted rates for special events and uses. Because reducing the subsidized parking period and charging for on-street parking may cause some parkers to seek parking further out in residential neighborhoods, staff are developing an expedited request process for adding Resident Permit Parking restrictions to new blocks, and will waive permit fees for two years for residents of blocks who require new restrictions.
 Evaluation: Staff are planning for a flexible, adaptable deployment that will be monitored, evaluated, and adjusted on an ongoing basis. Revenues will be monitored daily and reported out monthly. Street parking occupancy will be carefully monitored to enable fine-tuning of the priced street parking strategy.

New rates in garages and surface lots will go into effect on July 1, 2024. Rollout of priced street parking is expected to begin in October of 2024.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Budget impacts, including projected reserves balances and a summary of the proposed FY 2025 budget, are shown in Attachment 1. The parking system and its related services, such as State Street cleaning and maintenance, are not sustainable with the current funding model that relies on revenue collected from fewer than 40% of the vehicles that use the system, so staff propose a new model for FY 2025, as discussed above, that generates adequate revenue to fund parking operations and maintain capital, distributes the cost of parking more evenly, and creates a parking system that serves all users and facilitates easy access to Downtown businesses and attractions.

If the proposed rate structure is not implemented and rates stay the same, the Downtown Parking Fund is projected to deplete all reserves in the fund and require General Fund subsidy in FY 2025 and beyond. That subsidy requires the General Fund to transfer funds into the Downtown Parking Fund, limiting General Fund revenues for other services, such as Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Library, General Government and many other services.

The proposed rate structure is projected to increase revenue in the fund; however, the fund is still projected to have reserves in FY 2025 and beyond, below the City Council approved reserve policy level. The reserve policy states that anytime reserve levels fall below the policy, an assessment of the fiscal condition and outlook is to be performed, a Finance Committee Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking City Administrator’s Recommended Budget Proposal
April 30, 2024

balancing strategy is to be implemented. along with a plan to replenish reserves back to the policy target levels. Staff will work with the Council to confirm additional actions that may be necessary in order to meet reserve levels.

Due to the uncertainty of implementing the proposed rate structure and projection of revenue collection, the City Administrator’s recommended budget for FY 2025 includes a $500,000 transfer of General Fund revenues into the Downtown Parking fund. Staff will evaluate revenues and expenditures on a quarterly basis throughout FY 2025. If revenues are adequate to cover expenditures and make progress meeting reserve target levels, a General Fund transfer will likely not be required. If a revenue shortfall occurs, then the transfer will be processed in order to ensure the Downtown Parking Fund has adequate reserves to continue to operate.

Maintaining adequate reserves in all City funds is critical to ensure the City continues to receive a high rating from credit agencies, particularly when considering issuing debt for large capital improvement projects. Reserves are also communicated to the public on the City’s financial statements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed changes to the Fiscal Year 2025 Downtown Parking Budget falls outside of the definition of a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378 (b)(5) as administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct physical changes in the environment are not subject to CEQA environmental review. All future projects as a result of the Implementation Plan will be subject to CEQA environmental review.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. FY 2025 Budget Summary

2. Map of Priced Parking Area
PREPARED BY: Sarah Clark, Downtown Team Manager/EF/MS/nv SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
FY19 Actual FY23 Actual FY24 Adopted FY24 Q2 Projected FY25 Adopted FY25 Status Quo FY25 Proposed Budget

REVENUES
Bicycle Parking $6,555 $2,040 $3,360 $1,750 $3,360 $1,750 $1,750 Billed Revenue $14,083 $14,587 $15,000 $13,175 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Commuter Parking $369,710 $278,895 $281,160 $227,500 $0 $0 $0 Crossing Guard Revenue $0 $3,567 $85,760 $20,070 $85,761 $90,849 $90,849 Electric Vehicle Charging Fees $12,708 $12,461 $15,606 $17,000 $16,386 $20,000 $20,000 Hourly Revenue $5,232,886 $5,797,865 $7,031,487 $6,267,218 $8,430,469 $6,267,218 $7,767,334 Interest Income $325,890 $71,655 $77,000 $130,000 $78,600 $140,000 $140,000 Misc & Reimbursements $63,586 $378,306 $11,500 $37,593 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 Monthly Parking $1,278,746 $1,139,872 $1,266,959 $1,277,278 $1,548,120 $1,613,460 $871,200 Pass-Through $521,451 $718,099 $702,899 $702,899 $693,785 $702,899 $702,899 PBIA Assessment $1,031,032 $1,034,461 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000 Permit Replacements $1,645 $884 $900 $640 $900 $900 $900 Plaza Fees & Penalties $0 $6,788 $251,304 $249,691 $251,304 $251,304 $251,304 Project Planner Revenue $83,053 $54,351 $72,023 $72,023 $72,023 $72,023 $72,023 Rents $409,407 $518,762 $427,445 $527,445 $427,445 $427,445 $427,445 Residential Permits $97,470 $92,750 $98,240 $106,645 $98,240 $116,955 $116,955 Special Parking $13,004 $58,780 $23,000 $20,180 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 Street Parking Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,522,264
Transfer to Fund Balance $232,420 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $9,706,576 $10,184,123 $11,363,643 $10,671,107 $13,005,893 $10,754,303 $14,064,423

EXPENDITURES
Allocated Costs $1,569,146 $2,051,734 $2,351,710 $2,351,710 $2,611,555 $2,611,555 $2,574,900 Appropriated Reserves $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Credit Cards $181,133 $268,592 $150,000 $270,000 $150,000 $302,000 $390,279 Crossing Guards $0 $87,592 $176,732 $166,455 $173,644 $166,455 $166,455 Downtown Ambassador Program $74,273 $118,753 $271,606 $271,606 $263,840 $280,684 $282,255 Downtown/Waterfront Shuttle $928,292 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hourly Salaries & Benefits $1,736,791 $1,818,004 $1,808,091 $1,936,851 $1,783,031 $2,036,874 $2,119,152 New Beginnings RV Program $43,500 $47,850 $47,856 $47,856 $47,856 $47,856 $47,856 Permanent Salaries & Benefits $2,800,757 $3,035,565 $3,340,910 $3,251,557 $3,768,424 $3,768,424 $3,843,146 Plaza Support & Maintenance $655,902 $1,082,090 $1,388,665 $1,388,665 $1,378,882 $1,230,570 $1,230,570 Special Projects $2 $632 $82,855 $82,855 $200 $82,237 $82,237 Supplies & Services $650,101 $795,566 $930,725 $981,112 $954,031 $747,777 $888,495 Transfers $9,501 $0 $4,600 $4,600 $4,600 $4,600 $4,600
Utilities $227,716 $385,571 $368,800 $492,500 $379,500 $492,500 $492,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $8,877,114 $9,691,949 $10,932,550 $11,255,767 $11,525,563 $11,781,532 $12,132,445 OPERATING NET $829,462 $492,174 $431,093 -$584,660 $1,480,330 -$1,027,229 $1,931,978 Transfer to Capital $424,965 $780,135 $905,000 $905,000 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $1,502,048 FUND NET $404,497 -$287,961 -$473,907 -$1,489,660 -$1,319,670 -$3,827,229 $429,930 RESERVES BALANCE END FY $2,972,911 $2,499,004 $1,483,251 $163,581 -$2,343,978 $1,913,181 POLICY RESERVES $3,298,273 $3,892,549 $3,892,549 $3,691,017 $3,691,017 $3,691,017 RESERVES ABOVE POLICY $4,538,715 -$325,362 -$1,393,545 -$2,409,298 -$3,527,436 -$6,034,995 -$1,777,836 ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT
2 1
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING SECTION 2.12.035 REGARDING AIRPORT

PATROL PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

PARTICIPATION, AND ACCEPTING THE REQUIREMENTS
OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTIONS 13510, 13512,
AND 13522, RELATING TO THE RECRUITMENT AND

TRAINING OF PEACE OFFICERS FOR THE AIRPORT
PATROL

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 2.12 of Title 12 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended by adding Section 2.12.035 which reads as follows:

2.12.035 Airport Patrol: Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Participation.

The City of Santa Barbara declares that it desires to qualify to receive aid from the State of California under the provisions of Section 13522, Chapter 1 of Title 4, Part 4 of the California Penal Code.

Pursuant to Sections 13510 and 13512 of said Chapter 1, the Santa Barbara Airport Patrol will adhere to the standards for recruitment and training established by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

The Commission and its representatives may make such inquiries as deemed necessary to ascertain that the peace officer personnel of the Santa Barbara Airport Patrol adhere to the standards for recruitment and training established by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

Agenda Item No. 1
File Code No. 560.01

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Treasury Division, Finance Department
SUBJECT: March 31, 2024, Investment Report and March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Accept the March 31, 2024, Investment Report; and
B. Accept the March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report.

DISCUSSION:

On a quarterly basis, staff
submits a comprehensive
report on the City’s portfolio
and related activity pursuant
to the City’s Annual Statement
of Investment Policy. The
current report covers
investment activity for the
three-month period of January
2024 through March 2024.

By the end of the quarter,
Treasury yields increased
across the yield curve, as shown in the table above, with changes ranging between +6 and +39 basis points (“bps”).

The City generally invests in securities of one to five years in duration. Within this duration, interest rates ranged from 4.21 percent to 5.03 percent for Treasury securities at the end of the quarter. On March 20, the Federal Reserve (“Fed”) left the federal funds rate, which in turn influences Treasury yields, unchanged at the range of 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent.

Additionally, the Fed continued the Quantitative Tightening, a process whereby it reduces the U.S. Treasury Market
12/31/2023 1/31/2024 2/29/2024 3/31/2024
Cumulative
Change
3 Month 5.40% 5.42% 5.45% 5.46% 0.06%
6 Month 5.26% 5.18% 5.30% 5.38% 0.12%
1 Year 4.79% 4.73% 5.01% 5.03% 0.24%
2 Year 4.23% 4.27% 4.64% 4.59% 0.36%
3 Year 4.01% 4.05% 4.43% 4.40% 0.39%
4 Year 3.93% 3.98% 4.35% 4.31% 0.38%
5 Year 3.84% 3.91% 4.26% 4.21% 0.37%
10 Year 3.88% 3.99% 4.25% 4.20% 0.32%
30 Year 4.03% 4.22% 4.38% 4.34% 0.31%
LAIF 4.00% 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 0.30%
Agenda Item No. 2
File Code No. 260.02
Council Agenda Report
March 31, 2024, Investment Report and March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report April 30, 2024

liquidity in the bond markets, thus withdrawing the ample monetary policy accommodation introduced during the pandemic. In the current interest rate environment, the City interest earnings are forecast to gradually inch higher.

Investment Activity
As shown in the Investment Activity table above, during the quarter the City invested $32.0 Million in AAA-rated federal agency securities. The overall redemptions amounted to $13.0 Million.

Summary of Cash and Investments
The book rate of return, or portfolio yield, measures the rate of return of actual earnings generated from the portfolio. As shown in the table to the right, during the quarter the City’s book rate of return increased by 30 basis points, from 2.509 percent at December 31, 2023, to 2.807 percent at March 31, 2024.

In the third quarter of the current fiscal year, the City’s realized interest earnings amounted to $2.4 Million. The portfolio’s average days to maturity increased by 60 days from 525 to 585 days, reflecting reinvestment of maturities and calls during the quarter in the one-to-five year range in accordance with the City’s Annual Statement of Investment Policy. The Annual Issuer Face
Amount
Purchase
Date
Final
Maturity
Call
Date
Yield
To Call
Yield To
Maturity
Purchases:

U S TREASURY NOTE $ 3,000,000 01/25/24 12/31/28 n/a n/a 4.042% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 01/25/24 04/30/28 n/a n/a 4.060% U S TREASURY NOTE 3,000,000 01/25/24 07/31/28 n/a n/a 4.060% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 01/25/24 05/31/28 n/a n/a 4.065% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 01/25/24 03/31/28 n/a n/a 4.070% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 01/25/24 01/31/28 n/a n/a 4.080% U S TREASURY NOTE 3,000,000 01/25/24 12/31/27 n/a n/a 4.083% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 01/25/24 11/30/27 n/a n/a 4.095% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 02/09/24 04/30/27 n/a n/a 4.193% U S TREASURY NOTE 3,000,000 02/09/24 07/31/27 n/a n/a 4.190% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 02/09/24 08/31/27 n/a n/a 4.168% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 02/09/24 07/15/26 n/a n/a 4.300% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 02/23/24 08/31/28 n/a n/a 4.350% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 02/23/24 11/30/28 n/a n/a 4.330% Tot Purchases $32,000,000
Calls: n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sales/Maturities:

U S TREASURY NOTE $ 3,000,000 01/31/22 01/31/24 n/a n/a 1.145% FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 2,000,000 05/08/23 02/08/24 n/a n/a 5.010% FED AGRICULTURAL MTG CORP 2,000,000 02/12/20 02/12/24 n/a n/a 1.480% U S TREASURY NOTE 2,000,000 02/28/22 02/29/24 n/a n/a 1.548% FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 4,000,000 06/22/22 03/22/24 n/a n/a 2.751% $13,000,000
Tot Sales/Calls/Mat $13,000,000
Month
Ended Yield Days to Maturity
12/31/2023 2.509% 525
1/31/2024 2.616% 566
2/29/2024 2.732% 587
3/31/2024 2.807% 585
Council Agenda Report
March 31, 2024, Investment Report and March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report April 30, 2024

Statement of Investment Policy requires that the average days to maturity on the portfolio not exceed 2.5 years, excluding any investments with a final maturity longer than five years that were separately authorized by Council. The average LAIF rate at which the City earned interest for funds invested was at 4.30 percent for the quarter ended March 31, 2024, an increase of 30 basis point from the previous quarter. The City’s LAIF holdings at the end of the quarter were $75.0 Million.

Credit Quality on Corporate Notes
There were no changes to the credit profiles of the corporate issuers of the medium-term notes held in the portfolio (i.e., Apple Inc., Toyota Motor Co.). For the quarter ending March 31, the ratings of all corporate notes remained within the City’s Investment Policy guidelines of “A” or better.

Portfolio Market Gains/Losses
As shown in the Investment Yields chart below, at the end of the quarter, the City’s portfolio yield settled below the LAIF rate, the 90-day Treasury Bill, and the 2-year Treasury Note.

These benchmarks serve as indicators of the City’s performance, although, at times, they can show more pronounced swings, either higher or lower, than the City’s portfolio, especially in volatile markets, such as the current one. Trends over time that substantially deviate from these benchmarks would warrant further analysis and review.

2.81 4.59

5.46 4.23

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 Mar'20 Mar'21 Mar'22 Mar'23 Mar'24
City Portfolio 2-yr Treasury 3-mo Treasury LAIF
INVESTMENT YIELDS (5-yr Period)
Yield - %
Council Agenda Report
March 31, 2024, Investment Report and March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report April 30, 2024

On a quarterly basis, staff reports the five securities with the largest percentage of unrealized losses.

Issuer Face Amount Maturity Book/Mkt Change ($) Book/Mkt Change (%) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK $2,000,000 09/28/26 -$182,380 -9.12% FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK $2,000,000 09/08/26 -$180,000 -9.00% U S TREASURY NOTE $2,000,000 09/30/26 -$162,781 -8.17%
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK $2,000,000 06/15/26 -$162,620 -8.13% U S TREASURY NOTE $2,000,000 08/31/26 -$159,853 -8.04%
On a quarterly basis, staff also reports the five securities with the largest market declines of greater than one percent compared to the prior month’s market value. At the end of the quarter, there were no securities in the portfolio with a market decline of greater than one percent compared to the prior month.

The Fed’s removal of monetary policy accommodation to tame the current high inflation has prompted a sharp downside repricing across bond markets. However, because securities in the City’s portfolio are held to maturity, no market losses are expected to be realized.

Additional Reporting Requirements
The following confirmations are made pursuant to California Code Sections 53600, et seq.:
(1) the City’s portfolio as of March 31, 2024, is in compliance with the City’s Statement of Investment Policy; and (2) there are sufficient funds available to meet the City’s expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Fiscal Agent Investments
In addition to reporting requirements for public agency portfolios, a description of any of the agency’s investments under the management of contracted parties is also required on a quarterly basis. Attachment #2 includes bond funds as of March 31, 2024.

Community Choice Energy (CCE) Cash and Investments
A description of funds held in cash and investments by the City’s Clean Energy CCE is included in Attachment #3.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. March 31, 2024, Investment Report

2. March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report

3. March 31, 2024, Clean Energy CCE Report
Council Agenda Report
March 31, 2024, Investment Report and March 31, 2024, Fiscal Agent Report April 30, 2024

PREPARED BY: Salvatore Parrilla, Treasury Analyst
SUBMITTED BY: Lyndsay Maas, Assistant Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

INVESTMENT ACTIVITY INVESTMENT INCOME

PURCHASES OR DEPOSITS POOLED INVESTMENTS
Interest Earned on Investments 773,771 $ Amortization 24,786 Total - $ Total 798,557 $

SALES, MATURITIES, CALLS OR WITHDRAWALS
3/22 FHLMC (4,000,000) $
Total (4,000,000) $
ACTIVITY TOTAL (4,000,000) $ INCOME TOTAL 798,557 $

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Activity and Interest Report
March 31, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
1 ENDING BALANCE AS OF Febuary 29, 2024
Yield to Percent Average
Book Maturity of Days to
Description Value (365 days) Portfolio MaturityUS Bank Checking Account $ 24,555,387 0.750% 6.60% 1 (1) State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 75,000,000 4.122% 20.17% 1 (2)Treasury Securities - Coupon 78,308,810 2.743% 21.06% 945Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 171,946,384 2.545% 46.25% 750 Corporate/Medium Term Notes 6,999,218 1.352% 1.88% 459
Supranationals Obligations 14,988,869 1.745% 4.03% 791
371,798,668 2.732% 100.00% 587
Totals and Averages $ 371,798,668 2.732% 100.00% 587
Total Cash and Investments $ 371,798,668
NET CASH AND INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR March 2024 $ (13,417,550) ENDING BALANCE AS OF March 31, 2024
Yield to Percent Average
Book Maturity of Days to
Description Value (365 days) Portfolio MaturityUS Bank Checking Account $ 15,109,847 0.750% 4.22% 1 (1)State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 75,000,000 4.232% 20.93% 1 (2)Treasury Securities - Coupon 78,333,675 2.743% 21.86% 914Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 167,948,832 2.540% 46.86% 736 Corporate/Medium Term Notes 6,999,346 1.352% 1.95% 428
Supranationals Obligations 14,989,418 1.745% 4.18% 760
358,381,118 2.807% 100.00% 585
Totals and Averages $ 358,381,118 2.807% 100.00% 585
Total Cash and Investments $ 358,381,118
Note: (1) Earnings Credit Rate (ECR) is provided at the rate of 0.750% by US Bank to help offset banking fees. (2) The average life of the LAIF portfolio as of Mar 31, 2024 is 226 days.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Summary of Cash and Investments
March 31, 2024
2 PURCHASE MATURITY STATED YIELD AT FACE BOOK MARKET BOOK DESCRIPTION DATE DATE MOODY'S S & P RATE 365 VALUE VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS) COMMENTS LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDSLOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND - - - - 4.232 4.232 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal, LAIF 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 75,000,000.00 0.00TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPONU S TREASURY NOTE 05/03/19 04/30/24 Aaa AA+ 2.250 2.342 2,000,000.00 1,999,862.90 1,995,000.00 (4,862.90)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/12/21 07/31/25 Aaa AA+ 0.250 0.380 3,000,000.00 2,994,863.74 2,822,340.00 (172,523.74)U S TREASURY NOTE 06/02/21 05/31/25 Aaa AA+ 0.250 0.553 2,000,000.00 1,993,035.46 1,894,220.00 (98,815.46)U S TREASURY NOTE 06/02/21 12/31/25 Aaa AA+ 0.375 0.700 2,000,000.00 1,988,834.99 1,855,000.00 (133,834.99)U S TREASURY NOTE 09/03/21 06/30/25 Aaa AA+ 0.250 0.575 2,000,000.00 1,992,004.50 1,888,120.00 (103,884.50)U S TREASURY NOTE 09/24/21 04/30/25 Aaa AA+ 0.375 0.663 2,000,000.00 1,993,862.49 1,903,600.00 (90,262.49)U S TREASURY NOTE 09/24/21 05/31/26 Aaa AA+ 0.750 0.878 2,000,000.00 1,994,586.07 1,842,580.00 (152,006.07)U S TREASURY NOTE 09/24/21 07/31/26 Aaa AA+ 0.625 0.900 2,000,000.00 1,987,482.61 1,827,820.00 (159,662.61)U S TREASURY NOTE 10/08/21 08/31/26 Aaa AA+ 0.750 1.004 2,000,000.00 1,988,053.17 1,828,200.00 (159,853.17)U S TREASURY NOTE 10/08/21 09/30/26 Aaa AA+ 0.875 1.015 2,000,000.00 1,993,180.69 1,830,400.00 (162,780.69)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/18/22 04/15/24 Aaa AA+ 0.375 1.040 3,000,000.00 2,999,246.19 2,994,300.00 (4,946.19)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/12/22 04/30/26 Aaa AA+ 0.750 1.450 3,000,000.00 2,957,823.26 2,771,490.00 (186,333.26)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/18/22 01/15/25 Aaa AA+ 1.125 1.210 3,000,000.00 2,998,024.33 2,908,080.00 (89,944.33)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/28/22 11/30/26 Aaa AA+ 1.625 1.863 2,000,000.00 1,987,914.57 1,858,120.00 (129,794.57)U S TREASURY NOTE 03/15/22 03/15/25 Aaa AA+ 1.750 1.827 3,000,000.00 2,997,868.27 2,908,080.00 (89,788.27)U S TREASURY NOTE 03/17/22 05/31/24 Aaa AA+ 2.000 2.006 2,000,000.00 1,999,979.01 1,989,200.00 (10,779.01)U S TREASURY NOTE 03/17/22 12/31/26 Aaa AA+ 1.750 2.170 2,000,000.00 1,978,173.61 1,861,400.00 (116,773.61)U S TREASURY NOTE 06/28/23 10/31/27 Aaa AA+ 4.125 4.124 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,984,140.00 (15,860.00)U S TREASURY NOTE 06/28/23 02/29/28 Aaa AA+ 4.000 4.058 2,000,000.00 1,995,814.29 1,976,640.00 (19,174.29)U S TREASURY NOTE 09/27/23 07/31/24 Aaa AA+ 3.000 5.456 2,000,000.00 1,984,285.71 1,984,420.00 134.29U S TREASURY NOTE 09/27/23 07/31/25 Aaa AA+ 4.750 5.160 2,000,000.00 1,989,619.24 1,996,480.00 6,860.76U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 12/31/28 Aaa AA+ 3.750 4.042 3,000,000.00 2,962,540.32 2,936,010.00 (26,530.32)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 04/30/28 Aaa AA+ 3.500 4.060 2,000,000.00 1,958,356.90 1,940,080.00 (18,276.90)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 07/31/28 Aaa AA+ 4.125 4.060 3,000,000.00 3,007,626.99 2,981,250.00 (26,376.99)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 05/31/28 Aaa AA+ 3.625 4.065 2,000,000.00 1,966,649.11 1,949,300.00 (17,349.11)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 03/31/28 Aaa AA+ 3.625 4.070 2,000,000.00 1,967,510.94 1,949,680.00 (17,830.94)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 01/31/28 Aaa AA+ 3.500 4.080 2,000,000.00 1,959,358.96 1,941,480.00 (17,878.96)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 12/31/27 Aaa AA+ 3.875 4.083 3,000,000.00 2,978,549.79 2,951,610.00 (26,939.79)U S TREASURY NOTE 01/25/24 11/30/27 Aaa AA+ 3.875 4.095 2,000,000.00 1,985,124.87 1,967,660.00 (17,464.87)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/09/24 07/15/26 Aaa AA+ 4.500 4.300 2,000,000.00 2,008,547.69 1,997,040.00 (11,507.69)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/09/24 04/30/27 Aaa AA+ 2.750 4.193 2,000,000.00 1,917,563.78 1,904,540.00 (13,023.78)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/09/24 08/31/27 Aaa AA+ 3.125 4.168 2,000,000.00 1,934,452.10 1,921,260.00 (13,192.10)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/09/24 07/31/27 Aaa AA+ 2.750 4.190 3,000,000.00 2,867,284.15 2,849,070.00 (18,214.15)U S TREASURY NOTE 02/23/24 08/31/28 Aaa AA+ 4.375 4.350 2,000,000.00 2,001,953.97 2,008,200.00 6,246.03U S TREASURY NOTE 02/23/24 11/30/28 Aaa AA+ 4.375 4.330 2,000,000.00 2,003,640.81 2,010,540.00 6,899.19 Subtotal, Treasury Securities 79,000,000.00 78,333,675.48 76,227,350.00 (2,106,325.48)FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPONFED AGRICULTURAL MTG CORP 03/02/21 09/22/25 - - 0.480 0.540 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,813,670.00 (186,330.00) Callable 06/22/24, Q FED AGRICULTURAL MTG CORP 06/09/22 08/20/24 - - 2.910 2.911 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,975,130.00 (24,870.00) Callable 06/09/24, QFED AGRICULTURAL MTG CORP 05/15/23 05/15/26 - - 3.625 3.625 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,958,300.00 (41,700.00) FED AGRICULTURAL MTG CORP 05/19/23 05/19/27 - - 4.100 4.100 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,955,900.00 (44,100.00) Callable 05/19/25, 1x FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/15/21 06/15/26 Aaa AA+ 0.900 0.900 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,837,380.00 (162,620.00) Callable, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/06/21 05/06/25 Aaa AA+ 0.710 0.710 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,908,700.00 (91,300.00) Callable, P

QUALITY RATING

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Investment Portfolio
March 31, 2024
3 PURCHASE MATURITY STATED YIELD AT FACE BOOK MARKET BOOK DESCRIPTION DATE DATE MOODY'S S & P RATE 365 VALUE VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS) COMMENTS

QUALITY RATING

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Investment Portfolio
March 31, 2024
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 09/08/21 09/08/26 Aaa AA+ 0.870 0.870 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,820,000.00 (180,000.00) Callable, P FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/16/21 07/02/24 Aaa AA+ 0.570 0.873 3,000,000.00 2,997,734.93 2,963,880.00 (33,854.93) Callable, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/23/21 06/23/25 Aaa AA+ 1.170 1.170 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,864,370.00 (135,630.00) Callable, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/22/21 06/22/26 Aaa AA+ 1.390 1.390 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,785,350.00 (214,650.00) Callable, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/27/22 01/26/27 Aaa AA+ 1.780 1.780 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,773,320.00 (226,680.00) Callable, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 02/16/22 02/16/27 Aaa AA+ 2.180 2.180 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,804,370.00 (195,630.00) Callable, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/30/22 02/25/26 Aaa AA+ 3.320 3.470 3,000,000.00 2,992,005.62 2,925,360.00 (66,645.62) FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/26/22 05/26/26 Aaa AA+ 3.375 3.375 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,909,010.00 (90,990.00) Callable, P FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 10/19/22 10/19/26 Aaa AA+ 4.250 4.264 3,000,000.00 2,999,043.75 2,970,120.00 (28,923.75) FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 11/29/22 11/18/24 Aaa AA+ 4.500 4.650 3,000,000.00 2,997,310.58 2,986,650.00 (10,660.58)FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/29/23 03/29/27 Aaa AA+ 4.000 4.000 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,973,780.00 (26,220.00)FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/05/23 04/05/27 Aaa AA+ 5.270 5.270 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,988,100.00 (11,900.00) Callable 04/05/24, P FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/09/23 05/09/28 Aaa AA+ 5.020 5.020 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,989,880.00 (10,120.00) Callable 05/09/24, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/30/23 06/30/28 Aaa AA+ 5.000 5.000 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,002,860.00 2,860.00 Callable 06/30/25, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/25/23 07/17/26 Aaa AA+ 4.625 4.750 2,000,000.00 1,994,625.45 1,996,840.00 2,214.55 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/30/23 06/23/26 Aaa AA+ 4.820 5.068 2,000,000.00 1,989,707.80 1,984,880.00 (4,827.80) Callable 06/23/25, P FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 11/29/23 11/24/27 Aaa AA+ 5.120 5.120 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,984,960.00 (15,040.00) Callable 11/24/25, PFEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/06/23 12/06/27 Aaa AA+ 5.380 5.380 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,984,060.00 (15,940.00) Callable 12/06/24, PFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/28/21 01/28/26 Aaa AA+ 0.580 0.580 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,777,790.00 (222,210.00) Callable 04/28/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/28/21 01/28/26 Aaa AA+ 0.700 0.610 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,786,820.00 (213,180.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/28/21 01/28/26 Aaa AA+ 0.750 0.650 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,789,400.00 (210,600.00)FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/25/21 11/25/25 Aaa AA+ 0.500 0.500 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,787,390.00 (212,610.00) Callable 02/25/25, A FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/16/21 03/16/26 Aaa AA+ 1.000 0.800 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,864,300.00 (135,700.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/20/21 05/20/26 Aaa AA+ 1.000 1.000 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,850,100.00 (149,900.00) Callable 05/20/24, Q FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/26/21 12/26/25 Aaa AA+ 0.900 0.900 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,798,970.00 (201,030.00) Callable 05/26/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/26/21 11/26/24 Aaa AA+ 0.550 0.550 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,940,480.00 (59,520.00) Callable 05/26/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/10/21 06/10/25 Aaa AA+ 0.690 0.690 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,903,760.00 (96,240.00) Callable 06/10/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/10/21 06/10/26 Aaa AA+ 1.000 1.000 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,846,260.00 (153,740.00) Callable 06/10/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/28/21 03/28/25 Aaa AA+ 0.600 0.600 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,912,400.00 (87,600.00) Callable 06/28/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/23/21 10/23/24 Aaa AA+ 0.470 0.470 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,946,860.00 (53,140.00) Callable 06/23/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/28/21 03/28/25 Aaa AA+ 0.600 0.600 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,912,340.00 (87,660.00) Callable 06/28/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/28/21 09/28/26 Aaa AA+ 0.900 0.900 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,817,620.00 (182,380.00) Callable 06/28/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/28/21 10/28/26 Aaa AA+ 1.250 1.125 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,839,680.00 (160,320.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/21 06/28/24 Aaa AA+ 0.920 0.920 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,969,010.00 (30,990.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/21 02/28/25 Aaa AA+ 1.125 1.125 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,893,230.00 (106,770.00) Callable 06/28/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/30/21 12/30/24 Aaa AA+ 1.000 1.000 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,908,440.00 (91,560.00) Callable, PFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/26/22 01/26/27 Aaa AA+ 2.250 1.800 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,825,670.00 (174,330.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/28/22 05/28/24 Aaa AA+ 1.450 1.450 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,982,150.00 (17,850.00)FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/29/22 03/29/27 Aaa AA+ 2.375 2.375 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,819,670.00 (180,330.00) Callable 06/29/24, Q FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/21/22 04/21/26 Aaa AA+ 3.000 3.000 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,929,800.00 (70,200.00) Callable 04/21/24, AFEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/25/22 04/25/25 Aaa AA+ 2.750 2.750 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,958,100.00 (41,900.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/23/23 03/13/26 Aaa AA+ 4.125 4.137 2,000,000.00 1,999,435.78 1,980,080.00 (19,355.78)FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/26/23 06/09/28 Aaa AA+ 4.000 4.071 2,000,000.00 1,994,587.10 1,975,480.00 (19,107.10)FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/28/23 06/28/27 Aaa AA+ 5.300 5.300 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,993,380.00 (6,620.00) Callable 06/28/24, 1x FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/24/23 09/10/27 Aaa AA+ 4.500 4.511 2,000,000.00 1,999,251.15 2,005,940.00 6,688.85 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/29/23 11/17/26 Aaa AA+ 4.625 4.535 2,000,000.00 2,004,340.26 2,005,140.00 799.74FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 11/25/20 11/25/25 Aaa AA+ 0.625 0.625 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,798,070.00 (201,930.00) Callable 11/25/24, A FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 09/09/20 12/09/24 Aaa AA+ 0.500 0.500 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,901,570.00 (98,430.00) Callable 06/09/24, Q 4 PURCHASE MATURITY STATED YIELD AT FACE BOOK MARKET BOOK DESCRIPTION DATE DATE MOODY'S S & P RATE 365 VALUE VALUE VALUE GAIN/(LOSS) COMMENTS

QUALITY RATING

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Investment Portfolio
March 31, 2024
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 06/23/22 06/23/27 Aaa AA+ 3.500 3.500 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,879,760.00 (120,240.00) Callable 06/23/24, Q FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 06/28/22 06/28/24 Aaa AA+ 3.050 3.050 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,977,160.00 (22,840.00)FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 09/29/22 09/29/27 Aaa AA+ 4.750 4.750 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,969,610.00 (30,390.00) Callable 06/29/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 09/19/22 09/19/24 Aaa AA+ 3.700 3.700 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,975,160.00 (24,840.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 11/22/22 11/22/27 Aaa AA+ 5.125 5.125 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,986,110.00 (13,890.00) Callable 11/22/24, 1x FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 11/30/22 08/28/24 Aaa AA+ 5.000 5.005 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,993,880.00 (6,120.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 04/12/23 07/12/27 Aaa AA+ 4.750 4.703 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,984,720.00 (15,280.00) Callable 07/12/24, A FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 08/30/23 07/26/28 Aaa AA+ 5.650 5.684 2,000,000.00 1,997,358.44 1,996,220.00 (1,138.44) Callable 07/26/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 10/19/23 07/18/28 Aaa AA+ 5.000 5.212 2,000,000.00 1,984,158.86 2,010,340.00 26,181.14 Callable 07/18/25, 1xFEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 10/19/23 10/17/28 Aaa AA+ 6.000 6.009 2,000,000.00 1,999,272.08 2,007,840.00 8,567.92 Callable 07/17/24, QFEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 12/04/23 12/04/28 Aaa AA+ 5.550 5.550 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,006,940.00 6,940.00 Callable 12/04/24, AFEDERAL NATL MORTGAGE ASSN 08/26/20 08/26/25 Aaa AA+ 0.600 0.600 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,767,120.00 (232,880.00) Callable 05/26/24, QFEDERAL NATL MORTGAGE ASSN 11/17/20 05/17/24 Aaa AA+ 0.375 0.375 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,981,160.00 (18,840.00) Subtotal, Federal Agencies 168,000,000.00 167,948,831.80 162,412,790.00 (5,536,041.80) SUPRANATIONAL OBLIGATIONSINTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONST 01/22/21 10/28/25 Aaa AAA 0.500 0.500 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,805,990.00 (194,010.00)INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONST 09/09/22 09/09/27 Aaa AAA 4.000 4.000 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,885,160.00 (114,840.00) Callable 09/09/24, A INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONST 06/26/23 06/26/28 Aaa AAA 4.500 4.528 2,000,000.00 1,997,881.94 1,957,800.00 (40,081.94) Callable 06/26/26, 1xINTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP 02/22/21 08/22/24 Aaa AAA 0.250 0.255 3,000,000.00 2,999,942.93 2,938,920.00 (61,022.93) INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP 03/23/21 03/23/26 Aaa AAA 0.750 0.805 2,000,000.00 1,997,864.00 1,845,320.00 (152,544.00)INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP 06/03/21 07/16/25 Aaa AAA 0.375 0.621 2,000,000.00 1,993,728.93 1,886,820.00 (106,908.93) Subtotal, Supranationals 15,000,000.00 14,989,417.80 14,320,010.00 (669,407.80)CORPORATE/MEDIUM TERM NOTESAPPLE INC 09/11/19 09/11/24 Aaa AA+ 1.800 1.903 2,000,000.00 1,999,130.67 1,968,700.00 (30,430.67)APPLE INC 02/17/21 02/08/26 Aaa AA+ 0.700 0.705 3,000,000.00 2,999,720.69 2,783,220.00 (216,500.69)TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT 03/16/20 02/13/25 A1 A 1.800 1.770 2,000,000.00 2,000,494.40 1,940,680.00 (59,814.40) Subtotal, Corporate Securities 7,000,000.00 6,999,345.76 6,692,600.00 (306,745.76)CHECKING ACCOUNTUS BANK CHKNG ACCNT - - - - 0.750 0.750 15,109,847.21 15,109,847.21 15,109,847.21 0.00 Subtotal, Checking Account 15,109,847.21 15,109,847.21 15,109,847.21 0.00TOTALS 359,109,847.21 358,381,118.05 349,762,597.21 (8,618,520.84) Market values have been obtained from the City's safekeeping agent, US Bank. 5 2.81

4.595.464.23

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.0 Mar'23 Apr'23 May'23 Jun'23 Jul'23 Aug'23 Sep'23 Oct'23 Nov'23 Dec'23 Jan'24 Feb'24 Mar'24 Yield ‐ %
INVESTMENT YIELDS (1‐Yr Period)
City Portfolio 2‐yr Treasury 3‐mo Treasury LAIF

2.81 4.595.46

4.23 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.0
Mar'20 Mar'21 Mar'22 Mar'23 Mar'24
Yield ‐ %
INVESTMENT YIELDS (5‐yr Period)
City Portfolio 2‐yr Treasury 3‐mo Treasury LAIF

CASH & CASH

EQUIVALENTS
Guaranteed
Investment Contracts
(GIC) US GOVT & AGENCIES TOTALS
Book & Market Book & Market Book Market Book Market

BOND FUNDS

RESERVE FUNDS
2011 Water - 1,699,752.94 - - - 1, 1, 699,752.94 699,752.94 Safe Drinking Water State Loan
2013 Water - 794,190.81 - 428,069.44 - 1, 1, 222,260.25 222,260.25 Refunding COPS
2016 Sewer - 0.08 - - - 0.08 0.08
Refunding Bonds
2019 Airport - 1,820,250.00 - - - 1, 1, 820,250.00 820,250.00 Refunding Bonds
2014 Waterfront - 18,716.22 - 581,455.74 - 600,171.96 600,171.96 Refunding BondsSubtotal, Reserve Funds 1, 4,332,910.05 - 009,525.18 - 5, 5, 342,435.23 342,435.23 TOTAL FISCAL AGENTINVESTMENTS 4,332,910.05 1, - 009,525.18 - 5, 5, 342,435.23 342,435.23 Notes:
(1) Cash & cash equivalents include money market funds.(2) Market values have been obtained from the following trustees: US Bank ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Fiscal Agent Investments
March 31, 2024
ENDING BALANCE AS OF March 31, 2024
Book
Description ValueRiver City Bank Lockbox Account $ 4,579,863River City Bank ICS (Investment Account) 15,017,913Total Cash and Investments $ 19,597,776 ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY (CCE)
Summary of Cash and Investments
March 31, 2024

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Downtown Team
Engineering Divisions, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Receive an update on the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to the 900-1000 Blocks of State Street and 00 Blocks of Carrillo Street; B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market License Agreement allowing the market to operate within the public right-of-way;
C. Approve a sole source contract with Meridian Rapid Defense Group (Meridian) in the amount of $251,607 for fabrication of the vehicle gate barriers and storage trailers and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the contract; and D. Determine that the project is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15301 Existing Facilities, approve the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to the 900-1000 Blocks of State Street and 00 Blocks of Carrillo Street Update, and direct the filing of a Notice of Exemption in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15062.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Construction of the new Santa Barbara Police Station is anticipated to begin in fall of 2024 at the City of Santa Barbara’s (City) Cota Community Lot, which is the current location of the Saturday Santa Barbara Certified Farmers Market (Saturday SB Farmers Market). On September 7, 2024, the Saturday SB Farmers Market will be permanently relocating to State Street between Canon Perdido and Figueroa Streets, and Carrillo Street between Chapala and Anacapa Streets. Staff requests authorization for a new License Agreement with the SB Farmers Market for the new Saturday location. Street and traffic signal changes are underway ahead of the SB Farmers Market relocation to ensure safe access, traffic control, and emergency operations. Staff also requests approval of a sole source purchase agreement for temporary vehicle gate barriers that need to be erected at the Saturday SB Agenda Item No. 3
File Code No. 180.02
Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement]
April 30, 2024

Farmers Market entrances on Carrillo Street to prevent impaired and errant drivers from entering the Saturday SB Farmers Market. The sole source purchase agreement will include storage trailers for the barriers.

BACKGROUND:

The new Santa Barbara Police Station is anticipated to begin construction in the fall of 2024 at the City’s Cota Community Lot, which is the current location of the Saturday SB Farmers Market. Per City Council direction in 2019, City staff were tasked to work with the SB Farmers Market to identify a new location, report to the City Council Farmers Market Subcommittee on the location selection, and guide the SB Farmers Market through the City’s permit review process.

In late 2019 through 2020, City staff and the SB Farmers Market Board of Directors (Board) engaged in extensive research to identify alternative sites for the Saturday SB Farmers Market. Twelve potential alternative market sites were identified and discussed with the SB Farmers Market farmers, community, and City staff. The City and SB Farmers Market also surveyed members and customers of the Saturday market. Based on the research, the Board identified criteria to evaluate potential sites, including the size of the space, configuration of the space, availability and proximity of parking and public restrooms, customer walkability, shade, ambiance, location, permanence, traffic flow, impact on surrounding retail businesses, and possible event closures.

Based on the criteria, the Board identified the 900-1000 Blocks of State Street and 00 Blocks of Carrillo Street as the site that reflected the SB Farmers Market’s operational and customer needs. This location has the greatest potential to provide a safe, family-friendly space that is well shaded, easily accessible by foot, bike, car, and public transportation, large enough to accommodate 95 farmers market booths and their vehicles, and adjacent public restrooms. The area is surrounded by ample parking in the immediate area with the ability to accommodate the 5,000 plus attendees during the peak season.

On June 9, 2020, the SB Farmers Market submitted a Land Development Application to the Development Application Review Team to amend their existing Conditional Use Permit to include the new location. During the Land Development review process, City staff worked closely with Sam Edelman, Executive Director of the SB Farmers Market, to ensure the necessary physical and operational improvements for safe operation of the market. City staff and Mr. Edelman also worked closely with the seven businesses that have driveways along the new location to minimize conflicts when the market is in operation.

Because the new location will be operating entirely within the public right-of-way, the City Attorney’s Office determined that the relocation only required a License Agreement with the Public Works Department, rather than a Conditional Use Permit. A license provides exclusive right to use a specific area as set forth in terms created by the City but does not transfer or convey any ownership interest.

Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement]
April 30, 2024

The Saturday SB Farmers Market wanted to extend their time at the Cota Community Lot as long as possible, but with construction of the Police Department Building anticipated to begin in early fall of 2024, the time has arrived to permanently relocate the Saturday SB Farmers Market. The target date for beginning SB Farmers Market operations at the new location is September 7, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

Market Location, Hours of Operation, and Layout
The new location is along the 00 blocks of West and East Carrillo Street and the 900 and 1000 blocks of State Street, also described as along Carrillo Street between Chapala and Anacapa Streets, and along State Street between Canon Perdido and Figueroa Streets.

The Saturday SB Farmers Market will operate every Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

The right-of-way closure will be from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

The farmers will park vehicles and erect displays on both sides of Carrillo Street. Vehicles will be situated adjacent to the sidewalk, with booths positioned in a linear formation adjacent to the vehicles facing the street’s center. A twenty-foot fire lane will be maintained through the center of Carrillo Street in both directions. The fire lane will also serve as a customer walkway during market hours, as well as the farmers’ exit and entry way to and from the market site.

Along State Street, the farmers’ booths and vehicles would be situated in a single linear row along both sides of the street, equally dispersed between the 900 and 1000 blocks.

A twenty-foot fire lane, which is also the location of the temporary pilot bike lanes on State Street, will serve as a customer walkway during market hours, as well as the farmers’ exit and entry ways to and from the market site. Cyclists will be required to dismount and walk bikes when the Saturday SB Farmers Market is in operation and during market cleanup and setup. A larger percentage of the farmers will be located on Carrillo Street than on State Street. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the Saturday SB Farmers Market Vendor Layout.

Physical and Operational Improvements
To safely operate the Saturday SB Farmers Market at the new location, the following physical and operation Improvements will be completed before the market opens this September.

1. Installation of four curb extensions at the intersection of Chapala and Figueroa Streets to increase pedestrian visibility and decrease conflicts with vehicles and MTD bus traffic coming to and from the Transit Center, which is located just north Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement]
April 30, 2024

of the new Saturday SB Farmers Market location. These curb extensions will be installed with a larger pavement maintenance project with construction anticipated in spring/summer 2024.

2. Placement of protective vehicle barriers at the intersections of Carrillo and Chapala Streets and Carrillo and Anacapa Streets while the market is operating. The barriers will be capable of stopping vehicles from entering the market area, and include gates to facilitate easy emergency access. A sole source purchase order is requested for the barriers and trailers needed to store the barriers when the market is not in operation.

3. Partial removal of the center median on Carrillo Street adjacent to Chapala Street to accommodate emergency access. The center median removal is also part of a larger pavement maintenance project with construction anticipated in spring/summer 2024.

4. Traffic Signal Modification changes will include:
a. Signal phasing at the intersection of Chapala and Canon Perdido Streets to include protected/permissive left turns from Chapala to eastbound Canon Perdido Street. This will be completed with Public Works Staff prior to the Saturday SB Farmers Market relocation.
b. Installation of vehicular video detection at the intersection of Carrillo Street and Chapala Street; and
c. Installation of a traffic signal emergency preemption system with Public Works staff prior to the Saturday SB Farmers Market relocation.

License Agreement
The new location for the Saturday SB Farmers Market is completely within the City’s public right-of-way and requires the Public Works Director to approve a License Agreement. The License Agreement terms includes, but are not limited to, the following:
 Market hours of operation;
 Detour and temporary traffic control plan;
 Requirements for Saturday SB Farmers Market staff to set up and take down the vehicular gate barriers on Carrillo Street;
 Storage of the vehicle barriers on trailers in a City-assigned City parking lot;  Requirements for Saturday SB Farmers Market staff presence at the vehicular gates at all times in the event of an emergency;
 Handling of waste and recycling;
 Licensing fees;
 Standard City indemnity clauses;
 Insurance requirements; and
 Ability for the City to revoke the license.

Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement]
April 30, 2024

The Saturday SB Farmers Market will be charged a one-time fee of $7,560, which includes costs of staff time for training SB Farmers Market staff in preparation for the first four Saturday markets at the new location with respect to setting up the vehicle barriers and traffic control. The Saturday SB Farmers Market shall also pay an ongoing license fee of $660 per month for four parking spaces at a City Downtown Parking lot for storage of traffic barricades and trailers. The $660 initial monthly fee will be adjusted annually for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index. Finally, the SB Farmers Market shall pay an annual license fee of $2,000 in lieu of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area assessments. The license fee will be adjusted annually for inflation according to the consumer price index.

Sole Source Purchase Agreement
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a sole source contract with Meridian in the amount of $251,606.58 for fabrication of the vehicle gate barriers and storage trailers (Attachment 2, Vehicle Gate Barriers Specification).

Meridian holds national and international patents on its products, including the Archer 1200 Barrier, the only portable barrier solution certified in the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security for deployment on hard surfaces. Included in the purchase are storage trailers that will be parked in a City-owned public parking lot.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Community engagement will resume this summer to remind residents and visitors of the Saturday SB Farmers Market location change through a variety of communication and social media outlets. Downtown businesses and property owners adjacent to the new market location will be notified via mail. The City will work with the Downtown Organization, Chamber of Commerce, Visit Santa Barbara, and local news sources to message the market location change.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

All the physical changes needed for the Saturday SB Farmers Market were from prior allocations from the Police Department Project. The last remaining $251,606.58 for fabrication of the vehicle gate barriers and storage trailers will also come out of the Police Department Project budget.

Included in the License Agreement are annual license fees and parking permit monthly fees for storage of the trailers that will be paid to the City.

Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market Relocation to 900-1000 Blocks State Street and 00 Blocks Carrillo Street Update [Agreement]
April 30, 2024

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Approving the Saturday SB Farmers Market License Agreement allows it to continue on Saturdays, which will have a positive sustainability impact. Continuing the flagship market is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan with respect to reducing Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions, soil/groundwater pollution, and waste. Farmers markets are better for the environment than traditional grocery stores because food travels a shorter distance to get to consumers and results in less production of GHG emissions from vehicles, trucks, or jets. Participating farmers are required to use certified organic practices, reducing the number of synthetic pesticides and chemicals that pollute the region’s soil and water. Farmers provide local food sources, which means less packaging and refrigeration, reducing waste and energy consumption.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Under Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) § 22.100.070 and § 22.100.080, the Public Works Director has determined that the Project is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15301, Existing Facilities.

The physical changes for the SB Farmers Market were included in the environmental review for the Public Works Fiscal Year 2022B Pavement Maintenance Project, which qualified for a CEQA exemption. The operation of the Saturday SB Farmers Market is also exempt per CEQA Guidelines § 15301, Existing Facilities. The State Street Promenade for Farmers’ markets has already been determined to be an authorized use under SBMC § 31.30.020 C and within public street under SBMC § 9.48.010 C 2.

For these reasons, the Public Works Director, exercising authority under SBMC §

22.100.080, has determined that the Project is exempt under CEQA. The Council has final authority to approve the Project. Therefore, the Council must confirm the exemption before Project approval. The recommended action will make the necessary environmental determination and authorize the filing of a notice of exemption for the Project.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. SB Farmers Market Vendor Layout

2. Vehicle Gate Barriers Specification
PREPARED BY: Brian D’Amour P.E., City Engineer
Sarah Clark, Downtown Team Manager/JWG/BG/nv
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Administration Division, Airport Department
SUBJECT: General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Receive a presentation on the General Western Aero Hangers project analysis study, environmental review, and proposed public outreach; and B. Provide staff with direction on the next steps regarding public outreach for potential private funding for General Western Aero Hangars.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Santa Barbara Airport (SBA) staff will provide an update to the Council on the history, environmental review, funding, and possible path forward for the future of the General Western Aero Hangars (Hangars). This report includes four options for the Hangars which were analyzed in an updated Conditions and Further Use Analysis Study (Analysis Study) that was commissioned by the Airport in 2022. These options are: 1) document and demolish; 2) restore and reuse; 3) relocate, restore and reuse; and 4) deconstruct/ partially demolish (or combine two into one). In the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Option 1 and Option 4 of the Analysis Study were found to have a Class 1 Significant Impact and would also require Findings of Overriding Consideration to the 2017 Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the Council if selected for development. Options 2 and 3 were found to have Class II Less than Significant Impacts in the 2017 EIR. Funding for any of the options has not been identified and regardless of which proposed option is selected, grant funding from the FAA would not be an option. Staff is requesting that Council review comments from the Airport Commission meeting held on April 17, 2023, and provide a recommendation on the four options in the Analysis Study and proposed public outreach approach.

DISCUSSION:

Plan Background
The Hangars are located on SBA property near the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Hollister Avenue (Buildings 248 and 249). See Attachment A - Vicinity Map. The Agenda Item No. 4
File Code No. 560.09
Council Agenda Report
General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
April 30, 2024

structures, constructed in 1931, reside in a regulatory floodway near San Pedro Creek.

Per a prior Historic Structure Report, Buildings 248 and 249 are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and are also listed on the City of Santa Barbara’s (City) History Resources Inventory as eligible for designation but are not currently designated as historic Structures of Merit or Landmarks.

A prior conditions and use analysis of the Hangars was completed by LMA Architects (LMA) in 2002. The 2002 analysis included feasibility information to demolish, relocate, or restore the Hangars. No action was taken on the Hangars since that report was completed due to a lack of funding.

In 2014 a Historic Structures Report for eight buildings at SBA was prepared, including the Hangars. This report found the Hangars to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and for their association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of aviation history and that they were eligible for listing as City Landmarks. Therefore, the Hangars are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.

The 2017 EIR was prepared for the SBA Master Plan and adopted by the Council. The Master Plan and 2017 EIR considered four options for hangar reuse or rehabilitation, which are summarized in Table 1 below. The Options included: 1) no action; 2) leave in place (mothball); 3) relocation; and 4) document and demolish. While Options 1 (No Action) and 4 (Document and Demolish) were found to have a Class 1 Significant Impact, Council did not make Findings of Overriding Consideration for these Options at the time of the 2017 EIR adoption. Options 2 and 3 were found to have Class II Less than Significant Impacts.

An Analysis Study was commissioned in 2022 with LMA Architects and was completed in Fall of 2023 (Attachment B). The Analysis Study investigated four possible options for rehabilitation for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI Standards) for the treatment of historic properties. The options included: 1) document and demolish; 2) restore and reuse; 3) relocate, restore and reuse; and 4) deconstruct/ partially demolish (or combine two into one).

In the Analysis Study, Option 4 is considered as a new option that has not been previously evaluated. Option 4 consists of two sub-options. Sub-option 4(a) considered deconstruction of Hangar 248 and use of salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249 at the current location; or sub-option 4(b) considered deconstruction of Hangar 248 and use of salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249 at a new location on the Airport property outside of the floodplain. While Option 4 would require the deconstruction of one of the Hangars, the preservation of the second Hangar ensures the continued preservation of this building type at SBA. Repurposing salvaged historic materials from the demolished Hangar to rehabilitate the remaining Hangar would ensure compliance with the SOI Standard. While repair is always the preferred treatment, implementing Option 4 would result in replacements made using in-kind materials. This salvage approach guarantees the retention of important character-defining features such Council Agenda Report
General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
April 30, 2024

as sliding aircraft doors, redwood trusses, windows, galvanized sheet metal siding, and corrugated sheet metal roofs. Further, this approach would reduce material costs to render the project more economically feasible.

Summary of Options and Environmental Impacts
Shortly after the 2023 Analysis Study was prepared, the City prepared an addendum to the 2017 EIR as required per CEQA to analyze the potential impacts of the new Option 4 from the Analysis Study (Attachment C). The Addendum analyzed the environmental effects of the additional Option 4 (deconstruct/partially demolish (or combine two into one)) and found that it would have a Class 1 Significant Impact.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the EIR Addendum identified that the 2023 Analysis Study Option 4 project changes do involve new significant severity of impact not previously identified in the certified 2017 EIR regarding Historic Resources and Land Use and Planning. Additionally, there have been changes under which the proposed Project is undertaken and there is new information of substantial importance that shows the project would have significant effects not discussed in the previous 2017 EIR or that significant effects previously examined would be more severe than previously identified. New mitigation measures are required to address impacts associated with Historic Resources and Land Use and Planning. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no Subsequent or Supplements to the EIR is required for current project actions.

Council Agenda Report
General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
April 30, 2024

Option 1 (document
and demolish) and
Option 4
(deconstruct/partially
demolish) of the
Analysis Study were
found to have a
Class 1 Significant
Impact and would
also require Findings
of Overriding
Consideration to the
2017 EIR from the
City Council if
selected for
development. The
four project options
considered in the
2023 Analysis Study
are summarized in
Table 1 below:
2017 EIR 2023 Analysis Study
Option 1 No Action (Class I,
Significant Impact) needs
Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Document and Demolish (Class I
Significant Impact) needs
Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Option 2 Leave in Place – Mothball
(Class II, Less Than
Significant with Mitigation)
Restore and Reuse (CEQA
Exempt)
Option 3 Relocate (Class II, Less
Than Significant with
Mitigation)
Relocate, Restore, and Reuse
(Class II, Less Than Significant
with Mitigation, further analysis
required)
Option 4 Document and Demolish
(Class I, Significant Impact)
needs Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Deconstruction/Demolition and
Rehabilitation (Class 1,
Significant Impact) Required an
Addendum to the 2017 EIR and
needs Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Table 1: Summary of Options from 2017 EIR and 2023 Analysis Study Council Agenda Report
General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
April 30, 2024

Recommendation and Next Steps:

Staff presented the Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed approach to the Airport Commission in April 2024. Staff proposes that Council review comments from the Airport Commission and direct staff to proceed with public outreach and alternative selection. Staff recommends that the options be presented to the public in a workshop format to determine which alternative is most appropriate and gather information on public funding opportunities for the various options. Staff could proceed with the public workshop series as soon as directed. After staff receives direction from Council, the Analysis Study will be presented to the Historic Landmarks Commission for technical review. Staff would return to Airport Commission after the public outreach to provide an update on alternative preference and funding opportunities.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The Analysis Study provided initial cost estimates for the four proposed options, as summarized below in Table 2. A more detailed cost estimate is included in Attachment D. *amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand
Option 1
Document
and Demolish
Option 2
Restore in
Place
Option 3
Relocate
and Restore
Option 4
Consolidate
in Place
Design Costs $41,000 $261,000 $815,000 $228,000
Construction Costs $352,000 $1,858,000 $4,968,000 $1,458,000 Total Project Cost $393,000 $2,119,000 $5,783,000 $1,686,000 Table 2: Summary of Options and Estimated Project Costs Regardless of which proposed option is selected, grant funding from the FAA will not be available as this Project is not eligible under the Airport Improvement Program.

Table 3 below provides estimated revenues and payback periods that the Airport could anticipate after implementing one of the four proposed options. The ‘Document and Demolish’ Option 1 assumes the area to be leased would be unimproved aircraft apron space. Option 2 ‘Restore (aviation)’ assumes the Hangars will be used for aviation purposes and command the estimated lease rate of $1.20 per square foot. Option 4 ‘Consolidate in Place (non-aviation)’ assumes the Hangar would be outside the airfield security fence and therefore publicly accessible. Additional restrictions that may affect redevelopment efforts are that the project site is within a regulatory floodway and the current zoning is airport industrial and airport facilities, which limits land uses outside of those that are aviation related.

Council Agenda Report
General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
April 30, 2024

Option 1
Document
and Demolish
Option 2
Restore
(aviation)
Option 3
Restore
(nonaviation)
Option 4
Consolidate
in Place
(nonaviation)
Estimated Lease Rate $0.08/SF $1.20/SF $1.40/SF $1.40/SF Estimated Monthly
Revenue
$1,408 $11,520 $13,440 $6,720
Estimated Payback
Period

23.3 Years 15.4 Years 35.9 Years 31.2 Years
Estimated Net
Present Value after
25 Years
($120,400) $69,000 ($3,103,000) ($1,187,000)
Table 3: Summary of Options and Estimated Revenues and Payback Periods The 2024-2028 Airport Capital Improvement Program identified an unfunded need of $500,000 for the General Western Aero Hangars in Fiscal Year 2025 and an unfunded Future Need of $4,100,000. However, due to budgetary constraints, the more refined 2024-2025 Airport Capital Budget did not include funding for the Hangars. To fund this project, the Airport would need to consider alternative funding, such as public and private donations or development plans, and General Fund support in addition to providing Airport funds. If given direction, staff would pursue possible funding opportunities during the public workshop series.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The Santa Barbara General Plan focuses on a stated mission statement of “Living within Our Resources” and stresses sustainability for development (City of Santa Barbara 2011).

Options 2 and 3 from the Analysis Study would salvage the historic hangars, which is sustainable and preserves resources. Option 4 would repurpose salvaged historic materials from the demolished Hangar to rehabilitate the remaining Hangar. A careful and methodological salvage promotes preservation as it can give a “second life” to historic materials that would otherwise become construction waste. Options 2, 3, and 4 are each sustainable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The projects and alternatives identified in the 2017 Airport Master Plan were included in the adopted 2017 EIR. The City prepared an Addendum to the 2017 Airport Master Plan EIR, which evaluated a new project option that was found to have a Class 1 Significant Environmental Impact. If Options 1 (Document and Demolish) or Option 4 (Consolidate Council Agenda Report
General Western Aero Hangars Restoration Analysis Study, Environmental Review, and Proposed Public Outreach
April 30, 2024

in Place) are selected as the alternative from the Analysis Study for development, the Council must consider the impacts and make Findings of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA.

PREPARED BY: Sara Iza, AICP, Airport Land Development Manager/mg SUBMITTED BY: Chris Hastert, CM, Airport Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

2. Conditions and Further Use Analysis Study for the General Western Aero Hangars, Buildings 248 & 249 (LMA Architects, 2023).

3. Addendum to the 2017 EIR, November 28, 2023 (City of Santa Barbara, State Clearinghouse No. 2014061096).

4. Detailed Cost Estimate (LMA Architects, 2023).

Hollister Ave.

S. Fairview Ave.

Moffett Pl.

Cecil Cook Pl.

No. 121
No. 248
No. 249
No. 261
No. 267
No. 268
No. 309
No. 317
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Figure 4-1 Evaluated buildings shown on an aerial photo. °
22 1:10,250
Historic Structures Report for Eight Buildings at the Santa Barbara Airport Legend
Santa Barbara Airport Boundary
Building
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
Feet
P\2204\cor\off\reports
Santa Barbara Airport
August 24, 2023
City of Santa Barbara
Conditions and Further Use Analysis Study for the General Western Aero Hangars, Buildings 248 & 249.

Location:

Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara, California 93117
Prepared By:

LMA Architects
P.O. Box 3091
Santa Barbara, CA 93130
Job #2204
Consultants:

Historian – Applied Earth Works, Inc.
515 E. Ocean Avenue, Suite G
Lompoc, CA 93436
Structural Engineer – Praxis Engineering
1009 Morro Street, Suite 205
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Estimator - Tryon Company
315 Meigs Road, Suite 262
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
1 of 136
Attachment B
P\2204\cor\off\reports

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Order
1 Table of Contents
2 Introduction
3 Synthesis of Options Evaluation
4 Habitability of Existing Buildings
Section I Historical Significance Report
Section II Structural Report
Section III Cost Estimate Report
Section IV 2002 Termite Report (update recommended)
Section V Flood Control Letter
Section VI State Parks & Recreation Primary Record
Section VII
Figure “1" Vicinity & Existing Plot Plan
Figure “2" Basic Structure
Figure “3" Building Section
Figure “4A & 4B” Existing Wall Detail
Section VIII
Photo “1" Bldg. 249 S.E. View
Photo “2" Bldg. 249 View From the East
Photo “3" Bldg. 249 View From N.E.

Photo “4" Bldg. 249 View From S.W.

Photo “5" Bldg. 249 View of S.W. Corner
Photo “6" Bldg. 249 View of West End of Addition
Photo “7" Bldg. 248 View From South
Photo “8" Bldg. 248 View From S.W.

Photo “9" Bldg. 248 View From West
Photo “10" Bldg. 248 View From N.W.

Photo “11" Bldg. 248 View From N.E.

Photo “12 Bldg. View From East
2 of 136
P\2204\cor\off\reports
INTRODUCTION Job# 0224
Objective
These Hangar buildings 248 and 249 located in the northeast corner of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport were last evaluated by Lenvik & Minor Architects in 2001. The Airport’s objective at that time was to evaluate A) Restoration in the same location, which was housing small aircraft. B) Adaptive reuse of the Hangars as an aviation museum, visitors center, conference rooms, and children’s educational center relocating them to Hartley Place.

In this report, the Airport asks LMA Architects to evaluate the following four Options:

Option-1: Drawings, 4x5 photo and Historical documentation per City requirements of the existing hangers before demolishing them and paving the area for open field aircraft storage.

Option-2: Restoration/rehabilitation of both hangars at their current location and continue use as airplane storage. If the airport elects to an alternative use such as Aviation Facilities, that would be a study outside the scope of this report.

Option-3: Relocation of both hangars outside the floodway, but still in the 100yr flood plain and rehabilitate for a new use (TBD).

Option-4: Deconstruction of 248 and use the available salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate hangar 249. A sub-category 4(a) would restore in place 249 and remain airplane storage. The 248 and surrounding area would be paved for outdoor airplane storage. A sub-category 4(b) would salvage parts of 248 to rehabilitate 249 and relocate it to another site for a new use (TBD). After the relocation of 249 and removal of 248 the area would be paved for outdoor airplane storage.
3 of 136
P\2204\cor\off\reports
Analysis Approach Included:

Both of the existing buildings were reviewed for historical significance ( Section I),  architectural existing conditions are included in (Section I).

Structural updates to the analysis done in 2001 of the existing buildings. This 2023 analysis (Section II) adds the concrete substructure and updates the review relative to the current California Building Code in use (2022).

City input on the options.

Cost estimates of the four options. Certain assumptions were made and optional “adds” considered using the estimator’s best judgement not having preliminary proposed plans to assess.

Synthesis of the options analysis.

Habitability of the existing buildings analysis.

The project team consists of LMA Architects (Jeff Gorrell) as the lead, with sub-team members: Applied Earthworks Historians (Colleen Hamilton & Lea Kolesky), Praxis Engineering (Jens Amlie), The Tryon Company (Trent Lyon - Cost Estimator).

Site visits were made to view the condition of the existing buildings. Review of the City Zoning Ordinance, Airport Design guidelines, Airport specific plans and meetings with City Staff was done to determine in general terms, the compliance of the various options with those documents.

The various site and building options were also reviewed for general conformance with the California Building Code 2022 edition and the CALDAG Accessibility guidelines. 4 of 136
P:\2204\cor\off\reports
SYNTHESIS OF OPTION EVALUATION Job# 2204
Overview: The Airport Zoning, in general, falls under Title 29 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code.

The N.E. corner of the airport property where the existing Hangars 248 & 249 are located is zoned SP6-AIA Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan, A-F Airport Facilities Zone and S-D-3 Overlay. The (Coastal Overlay Zone) involves a Coastal Development permit to ensure that the development is consistent with the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act.

Background: The Lenvik & Minor’s 2001 report objectives A) Restoration B) Adaptive reuse moving to another airport location. C) Document then Demo. The Hangars must be on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) register to get relief from the California Building Code (Mr. Estrella), Head Building Official. Flood control requirements were made by (Mr. Paley Flood Control District). According to the City Historian (Mrs. Palmer) at that time, eligibility only does not preclude the buildings from being demolished. However, they are on the Local Historic Landmarks Commissions potential list which makes them eligible to go by the California Historical Building Code, should they be saved.

In 2001, Mrs. Palmer pointed out that buildings constructed during World War two and considered historically more significant in her opinion than the Hangar buildings have been approved for demolition. Buildings 239, 241, 246, 247, 251 & 260 completed their archive documentation for a cost of roughly $46,000 in 1998 and were awaiting demolition. Mrs. Palmer reviewed and approved those buildings for demolition at staff level, some of which were eligible for the National Register. She believed airport Hangars 248 & 249 could be demolished if the applicant could prove that reasonable efforts were made to relocate, reconstruct, or do an adaptable reuse of the buildings. If these solutions proved to be economically unreasonable, then demolition would become likely. If demolished, the buildings would have to meet the same archive documentation as the World War two buildings had to comply with.

The airplane hangars are considered non-essential airplane storage and can still be at grade level per Jeff Paley’s Flood Control Letter of September 11, 2001, he did recommend a floodwall however, at least at the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). At that time, it was 15 feet. 5 of 136
P:\2204\cor\off\reports
Option Considerations: There are four options the Airport wants considered:
(1) Photo document and full demolition of both hangars. (2) Restoration/rehabilitation of both hangars at their current location and continue using them as non-essential airplane storage.
(3) Relocation of both hangars and rehabilitation in a new location with a different adaptive use; like option 4(b).
(4) Deconstruction of 248 and use of salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate hangar 249. The Historians recommend Option 4 see Section I. LMA agrees given the extremely deteriorated condition of hangar 248. Hangar 249 could be restored in a more historically correct fashion utilizing salvaged historic materials from 248. Option 4(a) would continue as a non-essential hangar storage for airplanes, no bathrooms. Or Option 4(b) would relocate hangar 249 incorporating salvaged material from 248 to another location on airport property for another use, perhaps as an aviation museum, or an education center (TBD under a separate scope, if selected).

Note: The 2022 California Uniform Building Code (CBC) would govern at this writing. Should the buildings be eligible to follow the California Historic Building Code (CHBC) per the City Historian, certain alternatives to the prevailing code could be implemented at the discretion of the local building officials. Some of those alternatives are as follows:

Accessibility: Chapter 8-6 (CHBC); Alternatives List – Appendix A, Chapter 8-6, Table 1 (CHBC)
· Structural: Chapter 8-7 (CHBC)
- (706.2 CHBC) Broad judgment may be exercised regarding the strength and performance of materials not recognized by prevailing code requirements. See Chapter 8-8 (CHBC) Archaic Materials and Methods of Construction.
- (8-705.1 CHBC) Gravity Loads - Evaluations shall be made looking primarily for conditions where failure of support may be imminent. Where no distress is evident, the structure may be assumed to have withstood the test of time.
- (8-706.1 CHBC) Lateral Loads -There are some exceptions within this section. · Mechanical Plumbing & Electrical: Chapter 8-9 (CHBC)
- (8-901.5 CHBC) Exempt from compliance with energy conservation standards. - (8-902.4 CHBC) Heat - Producing and cooling equipment shall comply with prevailing 6 of 136
P:\2204\cor\off\reports
code requirements governing equipment safety, except that the enforcing agency may accept alternatives which do not increase the safety hazard.

Plumbing: Chapter 8-903 (CHBC)
- (8-903.1 CHBC) General Regulations. Requirements of the prevailing code concerning general regulations be complied with, except that the enforcing agency shall accept alternatives which do not increase the safety hazard.
- (8-903.9 CHBC) Building sewer systems shall comply with applicable requirements of the prevailing code.

Electrical: Chapter 8-904 (CHBC)
- (8-904.1.3 CHBC) The enforcing agency shall approve any alternative to these regulations which achieves equivalent safety.
- (8-904.2.7 CHBC) Lighting load calculations for services and feeders may be based on actual loads as installed in lieu of the “watts per square foot” method. - (8-904.1.4 CHBC) Archaic wiring methods that do not appear in present codes may remain and may be extended if they do not cause greater safety hazard.

Means of Egress: Chapter 8-5 (CHBC)
- (8-502.1 CHBC) General - Except as provided in this section, exits shall conform or be made to conform to the provisions of prevailing code.

Fire Protection: Chapter 8-4 (CHBC); Local fire authorities to determine NFPA-9 categories; LMA suggested to Fire Dept. (Aron Lynn) Group II, Type V applies. Fire Dept.’s decision is pending. They will require an option selected and preliminary plans to review to determine the fire suppression system in consultation with the NFPA, CBC, and CHBC. A critical decision by Fire Dept. will be whether they consider the option selecting a remodel or new construction.
- (8-410.1 CHBC) Every historical building which does not conform to the construction requirements specified in prevailing code for the occupancy or use and which constitutes a distinct fire hazard shall be provided with an approved automatic fire extinguishing system, as deemed appropriate by the enforcing agency.
- (8-403 CHBC) Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish - Interior wall and ceiling finish shall conform to the provisions of prevailing code. Existing nonconforming materials used in such finishes may be surfaced with an approved fire-retardant paint to lower the rating of the natural finish to within reasonable proximity of the required rating. 7 of 136
P:\2204\cor\off\reports
Options Explored:

Option 1
Provide drawings and 4 x 5 photo documentation per City requirements before demolishing the buildings and paving the area for open field aircraft storage.

Construction Cost Estimate: (See Section III)
Photos of the existing buildings (See Section VIII)
Option 2
Restoration of both buildings with some replication for use in situ with the addition of a concrete flood wall, major structural upgrade, new finishes, and add exterior asphalt paving for open yard non-essential airplane storage, vehicle parking, minor electrical for essential lighting only, and no plumbing. The new floodwall would be approximately seven feet high. The existing finish floor elevation is estimated at 14 feet (Brad Klinzing e-mail 05/04/23). The current Building & Safety Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is 19.2 feet and recommends the Design Flood Elevation (DFE) (top of floodwall) if no change of use, be 19.2 feet. If a change of use, the (DFE) would be higher, see the (BFE) Building Department determination in Section V.

Construction Cost Estimate: (See Section III)
Photos of Existing Buildings: (See Section VIII)
Regulation Review:

Zoning: A-F (Aircraft & Airport-related uses adjacent to the flight line) and S-D-3 (Coastal Overlay Zone).

The A-F zone allows uses such as:

A) Aircraft chartering and leasing.
8 of 136
P:\2204\cor\off\reports
B) Aircraft parking, tie-down, and aircraft hangars and shelters.

C) Aircraft rescue and firefighting.

Parking required: 2023 Airport zoning Title 29 Chapter 29.90.012 & the July 1997 Airport specific plan:

Open Plane Storage Yard - 100'x200'est. 20,000s.f. @ 1/5,000 s.f. = 4 Cars - (1) Bicycle for every 7-parking spaces
Hangar Plane Storage Warehouse - 9,600 s.f. @ 1/2,000 s.f. = 5 Cars Total Cars 9 Cars
2022 California Building Code: (Fire Department and California Historical Code) will alter the CBC code sections (TBD) once an option is selected and preliminary plans produced. · Group “S-1” Section 311.2.1 Aircraft Hangar (storage & repair), and 412.3 Aircraft Hangars.
- Floors are required to be non-absorbent (412.3)
· Construction Type “VB" Non-Rated (Table 504.4 height, 506.2 area, 601 rated elements, 602 separation distance)
· Occupancy and Exiting (Sec. 311.2, Table 1004.6, 1006.2.1):

A) Aircraft Hanger-Storage & Repair). 4,800 s.f./500=9.6 occ. [1- exit reqd.] (Table 1006.2.1)- (non-sprinklered) 100’ travel distance.

Occ 10<30
· Sprinklers:
- See Fire Protection in the California Historic Building Code (CHBC descriptions.

Option 3
· Refurbish hangars 248 & 249, re-locating them to another airport location outside the floodway, but still within the 100 yr. flood zone. They would be refitted for adaptive reuse such as an aviation museum or education center (TBD).
9 of 136
P:\2204\cor\off\reports
· Construction Cost Estimate: (See Section III) The estimate is hypothetical until a use decision is made by the airport and a concept and preliminary design is produced. ·
· Photos of Existing Buildings: (See Section VIII)
Regulation Review:

Zoning: Title 18 Airport, depends on the location selected by the airport.

Parking Required: Section 29.90.012. The amount of parking and bike will depend on the square footage of each use (TBD).

Building Code: See Option 2 above for specifics.

Occupancy: (TBD)
· Group “A-3” (Section 303.4)
· Group “E” (Section 305.1)
· Group “B” (Section 304)
· Plumbing Fixtures: 2023 CBC (uses TBD)
· Fire Protection:

Potentially foam suppression system and finish materials considerations.

Fire Dept. (Aaron Lynn) requires an option selected and preliminary plans to review to determine the level of fire protection in consultation with the NFPA-9; CBC, CHBC.

Option 4
Has two categories:
4(a) takes salvageable material from 248 to use to restore 249 to remain and function in situ. See Option 2 for a similar description.
4(b) would salvage material from 248 to be used in reconstructing 249 at a different airport site and different use. See Option 3 for additional code information. 10 of 136
1009 Morro Street, Suite 205 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 489-9900 • www.praxis-eng.com August 30, 2022
Jeff Gorrell
Lenvik and Minor
829 De La Vina, Suite 205
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Subject: Habitability of Hangar No. 248 and 249, Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara CA To whom it may concern:

As described through the structural observation addendum report, the primary threat that is considered a main concern to the subject buildings are lateral loads, wind or seismic. Wind loads will govern design in their existing conditions. Unfortunately, there is no way to identify the load capacity since the existing roof and wall system are not recognized as having any lateral resistance by the current California Building Code. However, in our professional judgement, the buildings do not need to be evacuated at this time. This is based on the history of the buildings being able to withstand considerable wind loads from various directions over the last 70 plus years. The report submitted indicates various upgrades to the subject buildings that would bring them up to comfort level of current codes.
12 of 136 11 of 136
Section I
13 of 136 12 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport
General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis,
Santa Barbara, California
Lea Kolesky, Amber Long, and Carlos van Onna
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
515 E. Ocean Avenue, Suite G
Lompoc, CA 93436
Prepared For
LMA Architects
P.O. Box 3091
Santa Barbara, CA 93130
August 2023
13 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is considering four project options that have the potential to impact the General Western hangars, also known as Buildings 248 and 249, at the Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara, California. Project options include demolition or rehabilitation and reuse of the hangars. Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) Architectural Historians prepared this analysis under contract to LMA Architects (LMA). The analysis of these historic structures evaluates the four proposed project options for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) and recommends a preferred project option.

While specific recommendations for consistency with the SOI Standards cannot be made until a project option is selected, various relevant observations are provided where they agree or conflict with the SOI Standards.

The General Western hangars are recommended eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1 for their association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of aviation history on a local and regional level. The hangars are listed in the City of Santa Barbara’s Historical Resource Inventory as City Landmarks under Criteria 1 and 3e. As such, the hangars are historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Proposed improvement/demolition of the hangars has the potential to result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources and must comply with CEQA and the City Historic Structures Ordinance (Chapter 22.22).

The four project options considered herein are: (1) full demolition of both hangars; (2) restoration/rehabilitation of both hangars at their currently location; (3) relocation of both hangars and rehabilitation in a new location; and (4) deconstruction of one hangar and use of salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate the remaining hangar. Æ recommends Option 4 as it provides a meaningful compromise between the most extreme options of full demolition and complete restoration in place. Where possible, this analysis considers mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant level as required by CEQA. The hangars are currently at risk of loss of integrity and structural instability due to degradation and incremental flood damage. Æ recommends taking immediate preservation measures, including flood risk management, to prevent further degradation and ensure that both hangars are protected until a project option is selected.
14 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis iii

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING .....................................................................................2

1.2.1 National Register of Historic Places ............................................................2

1.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources ................................................4

1.2.3 City of Santa Barbara ...................................................................................4

1.2.4 Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Airport Master Plan SCH#2014061096 .......................................................5

1.2.5 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties .....................................................................................................5

1.2.5.1 Standards for Preservation ............................................................6

1.2.5.2 Standards for Rehabilitation .........................................................7

1.2.5.3 Standards for Restoration ..............................................................8

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................9 2 REVIEW OF ELIGIBILITY AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ..............................10

2.1 SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................10

2.1.1 Integrity ......................................................................................................12

2.1.2 Character-Defining Features ......................................................................12

2.1.2.1 Building 248 (East Hangar) ........................................................13

2.1.2.2 Building 249 (West Hangar) .......................................................14

2.2 SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .....................................................15

2.2.1 Building 248...............................................................................................15

2.2.2 Building 249...............................................................................................16

2.2.2.1 Structural Analysis Recommendations .......................................17 3 PROJECT OPTION ANALYSIS ...................................................................................18

3.1 OPTION 1—DEMOLITION .................................................................................18

3.2 OPTION 2—RESTORE AND REUSE .................................................................19

3.2.1 Option 2a—Restoration .............................................................................19

3.2.2 Option 2b—Rehabilitation .........................................................................19

3.3 OPTION 3—RELOCATE, RESTORE, AND REUSE .........................................20

3.4 OPTION 4—PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION, RESTORATION,
AND REUSE .........................................................................................................21 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................24

4.1.1 Material Considerations .............................................................................24

4.1.2 Structural Concerns ....................................................................................25

4.1.3 Life and Safety Concerns ...........................................................................25

4.1.4 Flood Adaptation and Immediate Protection/Stabilization ........................26

4.1.4.1 Flood Adaptation ........................................................................26

4.1.4.2 Immediate Protection and Stabilization ......................................28 5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................30 15 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 1 1 INTRODUCTION
Under contract to LMA Architects (LMA), Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) staff prepared an impact analysis of four project options proposed for the historic General Western hangars at the Santa Barbara Airport in Santa Barbara, California. Also known as Buildings 248 and 249, the hangars are recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Architectural Resources Group [ARG] 2001:1). The hangars are listed in the City of Santa Barbara’s Historical Resource Inventory as City Landmarks under Criteria 1 and 3e, and considered historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Morlet and Hamilton 2014a:48–49). As an element of the Airport Master Plan Program EIR (Airport Master Plan) completed in 2017 recommendations were made for retention of the two General Western Aero Hangars (Buildings 248 and 249) that were originally recommended for demolition (Coffman Associates 2017:ES5). The current analysis was completed by Æ Senior Architectural Historians Amber Long (M.A.) and Carlos van Onna (M.A.) and Æ Associate Architectural Historian Lea Kolesky (B.A.), who all meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the fields of history and architectural history. Æ Managing Principal and Principal Architectural Historian M. Colleen Hamilton (M.A.) provided oversight and technical review of this document. She also meets the SOI Professional Qualifications Standards.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
There are four proposed project options considered herein that have the potential to impact the hangars: (1) full documentation and demolition of both hangars; (2) restoration/rehabilitation of both hangars in their current location; (3) relocation of both hangars and rehabilitation in a new location; and (4) deconstruction of one hangar and salvage of historic materials to use in rehabilitation of the remaining hangar.

The hangars were previously evaluated in Determinations of Eligibility for Historic Resources at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport (Triem and Stone 1995), a study that inventoried all buildings and structures at the Santa Barbara Airport. The study concluded that the two hangars were recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for their association with early aviation history in California. In 2001, Architectural Resources Group confirmed the earlier evaluation of NRHP eligibility and recommended that the hangars are eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for their association with military history and the history and establishment of the Santa Barbara Airport (ARG 2001). Reports evaluating the structural conditions of the hangars were completed by LMA in 2002 (Lenvik & Minor Architects 2002) and Praxis Engineering in 2022 (Praxis Engineering 2022). Æ staff reconsidered eligibility of the hangars in 2014 and also recommended them eligible under Criteria A/1 (Morlet and Hamilton 2014b). Recommendations for retention, stabilization, and mothballing per the National Park Service Preservation Brief 31 were outlined in the Airport Master Plan (Coffman Associates 2017:ES-15).

Æ staff completed a site visit on July 21, 2022. The Primary Contractor, City staff, Santa Barbara Airport staff, and representatives from Praxis Engineering and the Tyron Company were also on 16 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 2 site. During the site visit, the hangars were found to have suffered further deterioration but still retained integrity. Information compiled in previous reports was used to analyze the potential impacts of the project options for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) (Grimmer 2017). The project options must also comply with CEQA and the City of Santa Barbara ’s Historic Structures Ordinance (Chapter

22.22).

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Projects with the potential to impact the hangars are subject to CEQA regulations because they have been previously recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR and hence are historical resources. Therefore, all work on the hangars must conform to the City’s Historic Resource Ordinance and Design Guidelines and be consistent with the SOI Standards (City of Santa Barbara 2021:16).

CEQA requires public agencies to evaluate the impacts of their projects on the environment and includes significant historical resources as part of the environment. Public agencies must treat any cultural resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that a resource is not historically or culturally significant (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 15064.5). Under CEQA, the term historical resource includes but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5020.1[j]). Historical resources may be designated as such through four different processes:
(1) Official designation or recognition by a local government pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (PRC 5020.1[k]);
(2) A local survey conducted pursuant to PRC 5024.1(g)(4)—if the survey is 5 or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource; (3) The property is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and
(4) The property has been found eligible for listing in the CRHR by a lead agency as part of the CEQA compliance process (PRC 5024.1, 14 CCR 4852).

1.2.1 National Register of Historic Places
The criteria for inclusion in the NRHP are found in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.4.
17 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 3 The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To be included in the NRHP a resource must not only possess historic significance but also the physical means to convey such significance—that is, it must possess integrity. Integrity refers to the degree to which a resource retains its original character. To facilitate this assessment, the National Park Service ([NPS] 1997:44–45) provides the following definition of the seven aspects of integrity:

1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;

2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;

3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property;

4. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;

5. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;

6. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and

7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Assessing the integrity of a significant historic property depends on an understanding of the components or features that give it significance. For this reason, the issue of integrity is addressed only after significance has been established. Moreover, cultural resources that are not significant per NRHP criteria are by definition not eligible for listing and do not require an integrity assessment.
18 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 4

1.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources
Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC 5024.1; 14 CCR 4852):
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the significance criteria, the resource must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. This is evaluated by examining the same seven aspects of integrity identified by NPS and itemized above. In addition, the California Office of Historic Preservation (2011:2) specifies:

Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resources period of significance. . . .

Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural or architectural significance.

Resource integrity is further “based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important” (NPS 1997:45). Only after significance is fully established is the issue of integrity addressed. Ultimately, the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property can communicate those aspects for which it is significant.

1.2.3 City of Santa Barbara
The City’s Historic Resource Ordinance and Design Guidelines are codified in Chapter 30.157 and Chapter 30.220, respectively, of the City’s Municipal Code. The Historic Resource Ordinance lays out the requirements for designation as a local Landmark, Structure of Merit, or for inclusion on the Historic Resources Inventory. Per Section 30.157.025, the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) may designate a property as a historic resource if it meets one of the following significance criteria:
(1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution in our past; (2) It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, architectural style or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic or historic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable collection whose individual components may lack distinction;
19 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 5 (4) It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history; or (5) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic represents an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.

In addition to meeting one or more of the significance criteria, the resource must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. This is evaluated by examining seven aspects of integrity as defined by NPS and outlined in Section 1.2.1 above.

Per Section 30.220.020 of the City’s Municipal Code, the HLC must approve any exterior alteration, relocation, or demolition, including demolition by neglect of a historic resource. The HLC will approve a proposed treatment of historical resources that satisfy the City’s updated Historic Resource Design Guidelines, adopted by the City Council on May 25, 2021. The Design Guidelines clarify local ordinances, provide guidance on acceptable modifications, and offer restoration and rehabilitation treatment options. The City’s Design Guidelines are informed by the SOI Standards established by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

1.2.4 Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Airport Master Plan SCH#2014061096
The Airport Final Program EIR completed in 2017 itemized Impact CR-1 which proposed to pursue a management plan for the General Western Aero hangars that would mothball and stabilize the buildings in their existing location until such time as they could be relocated outside of the floodplain (Coffman 2017:ES-15-16). The Management Plan was to include nomination to the National Register of Historic Properties (sic), seek approval to move the hangars out of the floodway to a location that would preserve the integrity of the historic properties; consult with interested parties; and determine a treatment plan to restore, preserve, and rehabilitate the buildings per the SOI Standards. The impact measure was never implemented, and the buildings continued to deteriorate.

1.2.5 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties In addition to national, state, and local regulations, the proposed projects must adhere to the SOI Standards. The SOI Standards outline four options for the treatment of historic properties, including Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The prescribed treatments as outlined by the SOI Standards are hierarchical in nature. Regardless of a project’s intended use of the Standards, their application should be considered in the following order: first, retention; then, repair; and, finally, replacement with in-kind or like materials.

This document is intended to serve as a guide for selecting and implementing a proposed project approach in the treatment of the hangars. In this instance, the SOI Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration will be considered and addressed accordingly. Reconstruction will not be addressed in this document as it is not applicable to the proposed project options.

NPS defines Reconstruction as:
20 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 6 the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location [Grimmer 2017:225].

Although the work required to rehabilitate the hangars may be extensive and require the replacement of material, none of the proposed projects involve wholesale replication of nonextant structures through new construction. The other treatments per the SOI Standards are defined below.

1.2.5.1 Standards for Preservation
NPS defines Preservation as “the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property” (NPS 2022a). Preservation work generally refers to repair and ongoing maintenance, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize a property. Preservation should be considered as the first priority treatment whenever possible. The eight Standards for Preservation are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.

Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 21 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 7

1.2.5.2 Standards for Rehabilitation
NPS defines Rehabilitation as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values” (NPS 2022b). As with the Standards for Preservation, historic building materials and character-defining features are preserved, protected and maintained. The Rehabilitation Standards allow for the replacement of extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either the same material or compatible substitute materials. Rehabilitation allows for alterations deemed necessary for the continuing or new use of the historic building providing alterations retain as much original historic material as possible and do not impact character-defining features of the structure. These alterations can include additions or related new construction if it is compatible yet distinct from the historic materials and does not detract from key elevations. The 10 Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
22 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 8

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

1.2.5.3 Standards for Restoration
NPS defines Restoration as “the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period” (NPS 2022c). This treatment should be utilized when the expressed goal of a project is to make a building appear as it did during its most significant time in history. In order to ensure that a project does not create a false sense of history, Restoration requires adequate documentation of a property’s appearance during its established period of significance. The 10 Standards for Restoration are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period.

2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.

Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research.

4. Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.

7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.

8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. 23 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 9 The following discussion applies these Standards to each of the four options being considered for treatment of the historic hangars.

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documents the results of the analysis of the four proposed project options. Chapter 1 has introduced the project description, outlined and described the regulatory setting, and summarized the report organization. Chapter 2 reviews the eligibility of the hangars and summarizes the existing structural analysis. Chapter 3 outlines, describes, and analyses the four potential project options. A summary of the findings and recommendations is included in Chapter 4, and bibliographic references are provided in Chapter 5. 24 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 10 2 REVIEW OF ELIGIBILITY AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

2.1 SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY
The hangars are at the northeast corner of the Santa Barbara Airport within a discontiguous part of the City, surrounded by the city of Goleta in Santa Barbara County. General Western Aero Corporation constructed both hangars in 1931, and additions were made through 1944. The hangars measure 80 feet wide and 60 feet deep and rest on poured-in-place concrete slabs within an active floodway of San Pedro Creek (Praxis Engineering 2022:1, 4). Wood stud walls are topped by a curved corrugated sheet metal roof supported by 2 × 8 wood purlins, which are in turn supported by bowstring-type redwood trusses (Praxis Engineering 2022:1). The timber frame structures are utilitarian in design, and lightweight construction principles are embodied in their material composition and construction techniques (Lenvik & Minor Architects 2002:I:5).

Originally known as the General Western Airport, the General Western Aero Corporation began site improvements at the Goleta airfield in 1931. United Airlines began service from the airport in September 1936, becoming the first major national airline to serve the area with commercial air passenger service to Santa Barbara. Further improvement of the airfield occurred following the City’s selection of the site for use as a municipal airport in 1940. Construction efforts supported by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers continued through 1941 (ARG 2001:2).

Building 248, the east hangar, was built first and used as the headquarters of the Flying Service.

Building 249, the west hangar, was used as a machine shop, assembly plant, and factory of the Meteor aircraft. Building 249 was also used as a flight school for the Santa Barbara Flying Service from 1936 to 1942 and again from 1946 to 1961 (Morlet and Hamilton 2014b:21).

Shortly after the hangars were built, the General Western Aero Corporation constructed the airport’s Administration Building, a small two-story office tower between the hangars that was demolished circa 1971. Following the completion of the new airport terminal on the opposite side of the airport in 1942, United Airlines vacated the hangars, which were subsequently occupied by the U.S. Marine Corps. The Marine Corps used the hangars until 1945 (ARG 2001:2).

Listed in the City of Santa Barbara’s Historical Resource Inventory as City Landmarks under Criteria 1 and 3e, the hangars are also recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A/1 for their significance as the first buildings on site at what would become the Santa Barbara Airport. They are representative of the history and development of the Santa Barbara Airport as well as the development of early aviation commerce at the local level. The hangars remained in constant use from the time of their construction until relatively recently when they were relegated to access storage. The hangars have two periods of significance: 1931– 1942 and 1942–1945. The first period is related to the early history of aviation activity at what would become the Santa Barbara Airport. The second period is related to military usage of the hangars as part of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station at Santa Barbara.

The hangars have not been previously found eligible for listing at the national, state, or local level under Criterion B/2. Although there is historic photographic evidence that the hangars were 25 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 11 used by significant figures in aviation, the level of association with the lives of historically significant individuals required for listing under Criterion B/2/2 is not fully documented.

For example, Amelia Earhart is known to have flown to the Santa Barbara Airport (Figure 1), but the degree of this association has not been explored. The hangars are most directly associated with Albin Peterson and Louis F. Vremsak, owners and founders of the General Western Aero Corporation, and Burton and Jessie Bundy, owners and operators of the Santa Barbara Flying Service (Morlet and Hamilton 2014b:46). While these individuals do have a documented association with the hangars, research has not revealed any relevant biographical information that would speak to their historic significance. The hangars do not appear to be closely associated with historically significant individuals and are not recommended eligible at the local, state, or national level under Criterion B/2/2.

Figure 1 Undated photo of Amelia Earhart in front of the hangars (Modugno 2023).

At the local level, the hangars are rare examples of architecture of the early aviation era. The vernacular-style utilitarian hangars are a rare example of early airplane hangars in Santa Barbara and are recommended eligible for listing as City Landmarks under City Criterion 3e for their “exemplification as the best remaining architectural type” (Morlet and Hamilton 2014a:48).

Despite their rarity at the local level, the hangars are a variation of common aircraft shelter and do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values when evaluated at the state and national level. There are other extant examples of airplane hangars in California constructed during the same era of early aviation, including three hangars at Rockwell Field in San Diego; three hangars at Chrissy Field in San Francisco; and several hangars at McClellan Airfield in Sacramento (Morlet and Hamilton 2014a:46-47). The hangars at Rockwell Field are extant contributors to the NRHP-listed Naval Air Station, San Diego, Historic District, and are the only permanent World War I-era hangars in California (Mikesell 2000:1-13). The 26 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 12 Chrissy Field hangars are extant contributors to the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District, and the McClellan Airfield hangars are extant contributors to the NRHPlisted Sacramento Air Depot Historic District. All three examples retain sufficient integrity to convey their historic significance.

Unlike the hangars, which were initially constructed as temporary buildings for commercial use, the hangars at Rockwell Field, Chrissy Field, and McClellan Airfield were all purpose-built by the military as permanent buildings. Further, these other examples of hangars retain clear character-defining features associated with architectural styles or significant methods of construction. The hangars at Rockwell Field and Chrissy Field were designed in the Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival styles, respectively, while the “Great Repair Hangar” at McClellan Airfield is significant for its complex engineering (Goodwin et al. 1995:142, 212; Mikesell 2000:7-13). This massive, reinforced concrete and steel structure is representative of permanent prewar construction at military bases (Mikesell 2000:7-14). Additionally, the hangars at Rockwell Field were designed by a nationally significant architect, Albert Kahn (Goodwin et al. 1995:212); the utilitarian vernacular-style hangars are not associated with a known architect, engineer, or designer. In comparison to the other known extant examples of airplane hangars, the hangars do not rise to the level of significance required to be recommended eligible for listing at the national or state level under Criterion C/3. The hangars remain architecturally significant at the local level and are recommended eligible for listing as City Landmarks under Criterion 3e.

2.1.1 Integrity
Previous evaluations found that the hangars retained a fairly high degree of integrity on both the exterior and interior (ARG 2001:16; Morlet and Hamilton 2014b:48). The hangars retain sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey their historic significance. Setting is the only aspect of integrity that had been negatively impacted. Although the hangars remain in their original location, which “marks the inception of all airport activity and the genesis of the airport” (ARG 2001:2), both the 2001 evaluation by ARG and the 2014 evaluation by Æ state that the integrity of setting has been negatively impacted as the site no longer conveys its historic use or importance because the airport’s operational focus shifted to a new terminal in 1942 (ARG 2001:2,15; Morlet and Hamilton 2014b:47-48). Additionally, both reports argue that the demolition of the original Administration Building tower further contributes to a change in the historic setting “because the three buildings together visually explained the historic significance of the establishment of the Santa Barbara Airport” (ARG 2001:16). The ARG report also cites encroachment of the San Pedro channel and “increased and haphazard vegetation” as negative impacts on the setting of the hangars. Æ concurs with the previous integrity determinations, which were visually confirmed during the July 2022 site visit. Despite the impacts on the setting aspect of integrity, the hangars retain sufficient integrity under the other six aspects of integrity to convey historic significance and remain recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and the City’s Historic Resource Inventory under Criterion A/1/1.

2.1.2 Character-Defining Features
The hangars exhibit many characteristics of utilitarian Streamline moderne architecture, which was a prevailing style at the time of construction. Popular from the 1920s to the 1940s, 27 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 13 Streamline moderne was influenced by the design techniques commonly applied to ships, trains, and automobiles. Utilitarian versions of the style were commonly applied to factories and industrial buildings as a way to achieve a mass-produced effect embodying the new machine era (ARG 2001:13). The interior and exterior character-defining features for both hangars are detailed in the following sections (ARG 2001:13–14).

2.1.2.1 Building 248 (East Hangar)
Character-defining features of Building 248 include the following:

Overall Site:
• original location marking the inception of all airport activity and genesis of the airport • creekside location in the floodway
• paved area in front of the hangar
Exterior:
• arched façade
• two pairs of large sliding aircraft doors clad in flush-seam galvanized sheet metal with steel-framed windows, originally guided on sets of upper and lower iron tracks but now inoperable
• pedestrian door set into sliding aircraft door
• standing-seam galvanized sheet metal siding
• side-by-side 4-over-3 steel-framed windows, some awning type • an arch of faded/ghosted signage of serif-type letters that reads “General Western Aero Corp Ltd.”
• corrugated sheet metal roofing
• timber gutters
• ghosted gabled roofline on the east elevation
Interior:
• clear-span interior and large spatial volume
• king-post redwood trusses and exposed framing
• iron truss clips and square-headed bolts
28 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 14 • exposed underside of corrugated sheet metal roofing
• steel-framed windows
• poured-in-place concrete floor
• shallow vaulted ceiling measuring approximately 30 feet at the highest point

2.1.2.2 Building 249 (West Hangar)
Character-defining features of Building 249 include the following:

Overall Site:
• original location marking the inception of all airport activity and genesis of the airport • creekside location in the floodway
• paved area in front of the hangar
Exterior:
• arched façade
• two pairs of large sliding aircraft doors clad in flush-seam galvanized sheet metal with steel-framed windows guided on sets of upper and lower iron tracks • pedestrian doors set into sliding aircraft doors
• standing-seam galvanized sheet metal siding
• side-by-side 4-over-3 steel-framed windows, some awning type • band of steel-framed windows at the rear elevation
• an arch of faded/ghosted signage of serif-type letters that reads “General Western Aero Corp Ltd.”
• corrugated sheet metal roofing
• timber gutters
• rear addition reusing the original windows and siding Interior:
• clear-span interior and large spatial volume
• king-post redwood trusses and exposed framing
29 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 15 • iron truss clips and square-headed bolts
• exposed underside of corrugated sheet metal roofing
• steel-framed windows, some awning type
• poured-in-place concrete floor
• shallow vaulted ceiling measuring approximately 30 feet at the highest point • one-story rear addition, partially below ground level with raised floor

2.2 SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
The following is a brief summary of the structural analysis completed by LMA in 2002 and Praxis Engineering in 2022 (Lenvik & Minor Architects 2002; Praxis Engineering 2022:1). The intent of these studies was to determine what would be required to stabilize and bring the hangars back to code.

2.2.1 Building 248
In 2022 Praxis Engineering observed that Building 248 is in poor structural condition. It sits on a downward slope within the San Pedro Creek floodway, and the exterior walls are subject to water exposure. The current finished floor height is below the existing Base Flood Elevation (BFE), resulting in deterioration at the base of the walls and sill plates. The southwest section of the roof has failed along the 80-foot wood trusses. The west side of the roof is damaged from deflection (Praxis Engineering 2022:4).

All roof rafters, walls, metal sheathing, and associated connections will need to be removed and either reinstalled following repair or replaced following the reset of the trusses. A reset is required as the two primary roof trusses can no longer support the applied loads. For stability of the trusses, additional members should be sistered on or vertical supports should be added (Praxis Engineering 2022:4).

The walls of the hangar no longer connect the foundation to the roof. Flood control measures will require the installation of concrete walls under existing walls to a height between 12 feet and 24 feet above the BFE, depending on the proposed usage of the hangar (see Section 4.1.4.1 for further discussion of the guidance provided by the City’s Building and Safety Division). Per the City’s Building and Safety Division, the BFE for the hangars is 19.2 feet (City of Santa Barbara 2023). The new walls will need new anchorage as well as additional rod bracing or plywood sheathing to support seismic and gravity loads. While the foundation is in good condition overall, adjustments will be needed to support the new concrete stem walls that are required for flood control (Praxis Engineering 2022:4–5). Further, the hangar must be adequately stabilized before being lifted. Other potential stability issues may be exacerbated by construction, such as vibrations from jackhammering, and will need to be addressed prior to the commencement of work.
30 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 16

2.2.2 Building 249
Modifications to Building 249 include the addition of an outlook station with an exterior stairway in 1936 and the construction of a one-story 15 by 60 foot addition on the west side in the late 1930s. In 1944, the U.S. Marine Corps built a one-story 40 by 50 foot addition on the west side of the hangar; a one-story 20 by 36 foot addition at the north side of the hangar; and a one-story wing connecting the hangar to the Administration Building. The outlook station and stairway were removed at an unknown date and the wing connecting the hangar to the Administration Building was likely removed following the demolition of the Administration Building in 1971 (ARG 2001:12).

Building 249 is in fair structural condition. It is also on a downward-sloping site within the San Pedro Creek floodway, and the exterior walls are subject to water exposure. However, the lower portion of the northerly wall has a concrete flood wall that protects the hangar from deterioration, failures, and fatigue caused by water exposure as seen at Building 248 (Praxis Engineering 2022:7). The walls on the gabled ends require bracing with added members to span between the braces. Praxis Engineering recommends using a beam parallel to the wall anchored to the wall with braces or horizontal rod braces (Praxis Engineering 2022:8).

A portion of one truss and its support column have failed. All roof rafters, walls, metal sheathing, and associated connections will need to be removed and either reinstalled following repair or replaced following the reset of the trusses and their supporting column. A reset is required as the two primary roof trusses can no longer support the applied loads. Additional structural members should be sistered onto the trusses or vertical supports added for stability (Praxis Engineering 2022:7).

Per the City’s Building and Safety Division, the BFE for the hangars is 19.2 feet (City of Santa Barbara 2023). If there is no change in use, the DFE will equal the BFE of 19.2 feet (see Section 4.1.4.1 for further discussion of the guidance provided by the City’s Building and Safety Division). A use change will result in new flood elevation requirements. To achieve these new requirements, the walls will need to be shored and cut to the appropriate height, with new anchoring added to support the seismic and gravity loads. Additional roof bracing or plywood sheathings should be added for support (Praxis Engineering 2022:8).

The foundation is in good condition overall; however, adjustments may be required to support any new concrete stem walls necessary for flood control. Additionally, epoxy injection is recommended to stabilize existing cracks in the concrete slab (Praxis Engineering 2022:4–5).

From a historic preservation perspective, the poured-in-place concrete floors are characterdefining features, so the existing concrete should be retained and repaired wherever possible.

Where patching is required, the new concrete should be differentiated from the historic concrete, altering the texture so the new is subtly different from the old. It is crucial that new maintenance issues relating to an uneven slab, such as pooling water, be avoided. If the original elevations of the slabs cannot be confirmed, the elevations can be changed and leveled as required for flood adaptations. The extent of the damage to the slab will inform the best path forward. 31 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 17

2.2.2.1 Structural Analysis Recommendations
Praxis Engineering concluded that both hangars could be restored for continued use as airplane hangars; however, the addition of support columns and footings under existing trusses would reduce the maximum allowable wingspan of airplanes stored in the hangars. Additionally, the required repairs for Building 248 were more extensive than what would typically be financially feasible. The use of materials salvaged from Building 248 to repair Building 249 would result in reduced material costs and salvaged historical value (Praxis Engineering 2022:8). Although wingspan issues would not apply, restoring the hangars in place for a different use would have the same financial concerns. Further, a change in use at either hangar would require various plumbing and electrical upgrades that would be an additional financial consideration.

The option to relocate and restore the hangars would have similar concerns as restoring them in place. While structural deficiencies and flood control concerns could be addressed through this treatment option, the financial costs of dismantling and rebuilding the hangars would be significant (Praxis Engineering 2022:8).
32 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 18 3 PROJECT OPTION ANALYSIS
The future use of the hangars has not been determined; therefore, this section will address historic preservation concerns in a general manner, as they relate to the continued use as airplane hangars or adaptive reuse for other purposes including relocation and demolition.

3.1 OPTION 1—DEMOLITION
Option 1 proposes the demolition of both hangars following thorough documentation.

Demolition would result in complete loss of historic materials. The hangars would no longer retain any aspects of historic integrity, and the hangars would no longer be able to convey their historic significance. Therefore, full demolition of a historic property is not consistent with the SOI Standards and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact under CEQA. This option would be a Class I impact: a significant impact to the environment that remains significant even after mitigations measures are applied (Coffman Associates 2017:ES-8).

Under this option, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would have to be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant using an SOI-qualified architectural historian certified by the City or the existing Airport Final Program EIR would need to be updated. During the EIR public review period, the public would have an opportunity to review the EIR and submit comments.

For demolition to be approved, the EIR would need to disclose that the structures have been recommended as eligible for the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A/1. The EIR would need to explore alternatives that would preserve the resources. If found to be eligible, and with preservation possible, decision-makers could choose to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations where demolition would be a potentially significant impact (Class I) but other considerations, such as safety or excessive cost to stabilize, would warrant proceeding with demolition. The EIR would need to address plans for public interpretation of the historic hangars on site following their removal. This interpretation plan could involve signage, electronic storyboards, or the installation of an NPS-style informational panel.

If demolition is approved, the highest level of documentation of the hangars would be required.

This requirement could be satisfied through the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation, which would include large-format archival-quality photography of exteriors and interiors, measured drawings, written descriptions of the hangars, and development of a historic context. The use of photogrammetry or light detecting and ranging (LiDAR) technology may also be appropriate approaches for documenting the historic significance of the hangars prior to demolition. These techniques, or a combination thereof, would create a permanent record of the physical features and historic context of the hangars. Even with the level of documentation effort described above, the substantial loss of these significant historical resources would not be mitigated to a less than significant level under CEQA. It would result in a Class I, significant environmental impact.

Æ does not recommend Option 1 based on the additional cost and environmental review requirements and resulting loss of significant historical resources. Option 1 would be both 33 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 19 prohibitively costly and time-consuming and would not meet the SOI Standards or requirements of CEQA.

3.2 OPTION 2—RESTORE AND REUSE
Restoration and/or rehabilitation of both hangars in situ is the proposed Option 2. Although Building 249 is in better condition than Building 248 overall, extensive work is required on both hangars to address issues related to their diminished historic and structural integrity. This work must meet the SOI Standards.

The appropriate SOI Standards used to guide the project will depend on the details of the final project. If the hangars are restored to their period of significance and remain in use as airplane hangars at their current location, the project would follow the SOI Standards for Restoration (see Section 3.2.1). If the hangars are altered for adaptation to new use, the Standards for Rehabilitation would be used instead (see Section 3.2.2). Restoration of both structures would be the only CEQA-Class III, less than significant impact of the options proposed.

3.2.1 Option 2a—Restoration
Using the Restoration Standards, Option 2a would result in two airplane hangars that are accurately restored to their established periods of significance, 1931–1942 and/or 1942–1945.

There is abundant historic photographic evidence of the hangars that would aid in restoration. If historic materials cannot be repaired and require replacement in-kind, Option 2a may result in a negative impact on the historic integrity of materials, depending on the degree to which replacement of materials is needed. If there is a loss of historic materials, it would not result in a complete loss of integrity because fully restoring the hangars would strengthen the hangars’ ability to convey their integrity of feeling and association. The integrity of setting and location would not be further impacted by this option, assuming relocation is not required.

3.2.2 Option 2b—Rehabilitation
Using the Rehabilitation Standards, Option 2b would rehabilitate the hangars for a new use. As described above in Option 2a, a negative impact on the historic integrity of materials may occur if the hangars’ original historic materials cannot be repaired. The degree to which replacement is needed would be a factor. Ideally, all rehabilitation work would be done in a sensitive manner that results in a minimal impact on aspects of workmanship, materials, and design following the SOI Standards. This option does require consideration of the cumulative effect of loss of integrity, as altering the hangars for use as anything other than airplane hangars could result in loss of association, character-defining features, and, potentially, reduction in feeling. Per NPS Technical Preservation Services Bulletin 55, industrial buildings can be rehabilitated for new usage, so long as the proposed new use is compatible with the building’s historic character (Grimmer 2009:1). To be consistent with the SOI Standards, a rehabilitation project for adaptive reuse must retain the historic building’s industrial character through the preservation of character-defining features, distinctive finishes, and craftsmanship. It would be important to retain the wide-open space of the interior of the hangars. Assuming relocation is not a consideration, the integrity of setting and location would not be impacted by this option. This option would result in a Class III, less than significant impact. 34 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 20 Overall, Option 2 would be a suitable option from a historic preservation perspective because it would result in the majority of the historic building materials being retained and repaired and all repairs would follow the SOI Standards. Due to the current conditions of the hangars, however, executing Option 2 would be costly and likely not economically feasible. Additionally, this option would not directly address ongoing concerns related to flooding. See Section 4.1.4.1 for further discussion of flood adaptation measures required to stabilize and protect the hangars from future flood-related damage.

3.3 OPTION 3—RELOCATE, RESTORE, AND REUSE
A project that proposes relocation and rehabilitation of both hangars would follow the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. While relocation outside the floodway would protect the hangars from sustaining damage from future flooding, there are many other drawbacks to this proposed option.

NPS guidance states that “[p]roperties listed in the National Register should be moved only when there is no feasible alternative for preservation” (Curtis 1979:14). In the event that relocation is the only alternative to preservation, early consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, and potentially the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, is highly recommended to ensure all applicable procedures are followed. If the correct steps are followed, NRHP-listed buildings can retain their status during and after relocation. If necessary, a building can be renominated following relocation if its status was removed in the process (Curtis 1979:14-15).

Because NRHP-eligible buildings should generally be treated as if they were already listed, this guidance applies to the hangars.

For the purposes of CEQA, the California Office of Historic Preservation states that relocation may mitigate below a level of significance:

Relocation of an historical resource may constitute an adverse impact to the resource.

However, in situations where relocation is the only feasible alternative to demolition, relocation may mitigate below a level of significance provided that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource and the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register (14 CCR Section 4852(d)(1)) [Office of Historic Preservation 2023].

Pending approval of the HLC, relocation could be possible if the appropriate procedures are followed. Per CEQA this would be a Class III, less than significant impact. There would, however, still be a potential to negatively impact the hangars’ eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP due to the risks that relocation poses to historical integrity. Any potential relocation efforts should be guided by a master planning document prepared by or with the involvement of an SOI-qualified architectural historian. Maximizing the hangars’ potential to retain their NRHP eligibility will depend on thorough preparation and documentation as well as careful collaboration between preservation professionals and technical experts.

If relocation was approved, relocation would require the involvement of skilled professionals experienced with moving historic buildings, specifically either partial disassembling or fully deconstructing and reassembling structurally sensitive building elements. An alternate site must also be identified before moving either hangar. The receiving site must be located outside the floodway. Because the historic significance of the hangars is directly tied to the development of 35 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 21 the Santa Barbara Airport, selecting a new site within the airport boundaries is imperative to preserve as much of the setting and association aspects of integrity as possible. Nonetheless, relocation of the hangars is certainly preferable to total demolition.

Due to severe structural concerns, the hangars are likely unable to be moved in their current condition. Trained professionals would need to evaluate the options for stabilization as well as partial disassembly or full deconstruction before moving and reassembly of the hangars at their new site. A detailed strategy would need to be developed and reviewed. Before the implementation of a move, the study of the logistics of such a move and full HABS/HAER documentation would be needed. A Historic Preservation Management Plan (HPMP) should also be developed to guide the entire relocation process. Each step of the moving process would require extensive cataloging of parts of the building, and monitors would be required during the entire process to ensure that the historic materials were treated appropriately. If either or both of the hangars were unable to be immediately reconstructed at the new locations, the historic materials would need to be safely secured and stored in a climate-controlled environment in the interim to prevent further deterioration potentially affecting successful reassembly.

From a historic preservation perspective, Option 3 would still be problematic because it could potentially result in a substantial, if not complete, loss of integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, and at least partial loss of integrity of material and workmanship. Negative impacts on historic integrity of materials may occur if the hangars’ original historic materials cannot be repaired and must be replaced. As previously discussed in Option 2, this option requires consideration of the cumulative effect of integrity losses. Additionally, rehabilitating both hangars would be extremely costly. The added costs associated with preparation of an HPMP, recording the hangars according to HABS/HAER standards prior to relocation, reassembly, and possible temporary storage also make Option 3 cost prohibitive.

3.4 OPTION 4—PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE Buildings 248 and 249 were conceptualized at the same time and are nearly identical in workmanship, material, and design. While both hangars require repair and structural stabilization, Building 248 is visibly and structurally in worse condition. During the first walkthrough of the site, team members discussed the need for an atypical approach to this unique scenario. The deconstruction of Building 248 and the reuse of its historic materials to rehabilitate Building 249 was discussed, and the option was supported by the project team.

Building 248 is in poor condition and requires more substantial repair work and flood adaptation measures than are needed at Building 249. The damage to Building 248 is so far advanced that the majority of its historic materials cannot be repaired and instead will need to be removed and replaced. This would negatively impact the hangar’s integrity, particularly the aspects of workmanship, materials, and design. Depending on the extent of material replacement and the cumulative impacts on integrity, a rehabilitated Building 248 may only marginally convey its historic significance. By carefully dismantling Building 248 and reusing its salvageable historic materials to rehabilitate Building 249, the project would result in one hangar that fully represents the historic significance of the two hangars, jointly preserving this rare local building type and representing the hangars’ period of historic significance. 36 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 22 Option 4 is a compromise that simultaneously satisfies the goals of the City and Santa Barbara Airport and meets historic preservation compliance. It may also gain acceptance from the general public, as opposed to total loss of both hangars. This option would involve the careful and strategic dismantling of Building 248 to reuse the building’s historic materials in adaptive reuse to rehabilitate Building 249. Option 4 would follow the Rehabilitation Standards where possible; however, altering Building 249 for use as anything other than an airplane hangar has the potential to negatively impact the property’s historic integrity of association and feeling if character-defining features related to the building’s historic use are not retained. Further, there would only be one hangar as opposed to two. Regardless of the future use, however, this project option would be a Class I or II impact resulting in preparation of either a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or project specific EIR prior to implementation. The salvage of historic materials for reuse to restore the other building could be proposed in the environmental document as mitigation measures to reduce impacts. These mitigation measures would lessen the impact but would not qualify as a less than significant impact. Total demolition of both structures could not be fully mitigated. Until an alternate reuse is identified, it is unclear whether this would be a Class I or Class II impact.

Option 4 would involve the total loss of Building 248, but the materials would be salvaged for reuse in rehabilitating Building 249 wherever possible. The rehabilitation of Building 249 using salvaged materials resulting in its stabilization and continued use would serve as an overall positive counterbalance (mitigation) to the loss of Building 248. Further, the loss of one hangar, which is nearly identical in appearance and design to the hangar that would be retained and rehabilitated, is preferable to the total loss of both historic hangars.

Option 4 would also result in a more sustainable project as this approach would reuse material that would typically be discarded as waste following demolition. Rather than using entirely new material, the rehabilitation of Building 249 would be completed using as much of the salvaged historic fabric of Building 248 as possible. The process of reusing materials following deconstruction is an approach that can result in positive aesthetic, environmental, and financial impacts on a project, and can offer a unique opportunity to retain the cultural or historical value of a property (Melton 2020:25). To reduce the carbon impacts of a construction project, the American Institute of Architects recommends prioritizing the salvage of materials like brick, metals, concrete, and wood (Strain n.d.).

If this approach is favored and deconstruction of Building 248 is approved for salvage of materials, thorough documentation of the hangar would be required through the preparation of HABS/HAER documentation, which would include large-format archival photography of exteriors and interiors, measured drawings, written descriptions of the building, and development of a historic context. The use of photogrammetry or LiDAR technology may also be appropriate for documenting Building 248 and aid in the rehabilitation effort. These techniques, or a combination thereof, would create a permanent record of the physical features and historical significance of the demolished hangar. The information gathered through this documentation process would then be used to create informational materials to be displayed at the site of the demolished hangar and/or in the rehabilitated hangar. Informational materials could include a brochure, signage, or NPS-style pedestal panel that explains the historic significance of the hangars and details the rehabilitation project to prevent a false sense of history. Additionally, the brochure and signage could document the relation of the Administration Building demolished in 37 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 23 1971, further documenting the site’s original usage and appearance. Preparing an HPMP and appropriate HABS/HAER documentation of the deconstructed hangar, reusing the historic materials salvaged, and creating explanatory materials such as a brochure or signage could serve as mitigation measures justified in an MND or project specific EIR as required under CEQA.

As described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, a full restoration of both hangars, while desirable, would be extremely costly and likely require extensive reconstruction of Building 428. Further, impacts to integrity would occur. Salvaging and reusing as much historic material as possible from Building 248 to rehabilitate Building 249 provides a more cost-effective alternative to a full restoration of both structures. The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation recommends the reuse of salvaged materials “where these features are missing or are too deteriorated to repair,” provided that they are not reused in a manner that conveys a false sense of history (Grimmer 2017:132).

Following HABS/HAER documentation and the development of an HPMP, trained professionals would need to partially disassemble or fully deconstruct Building 248 and catalog the sections or pieces of the hangar that can be reused. An SOI-qualified preservation architect and/or architectural historian would be required to monitor the entire deconstruction and construction process to ensure the historic materials are treated and used appropriately. All character-defining features of Building 249 must be documented and preserved. Building 249 and 248 are very similar, and preservation of one structure will preserve the character-defining features of both structures. The salvaged historic materials would need to be safely secured and stored in a climate-controlled environment until they are ready to be reused.

The spatial relationship between the two hangars would be lost in Option 4 and it would negatively impact Building 249’s integrity of setting and feeling, but this impact was realized when the Administration Building was demolished in 1971. Negative impacts on the historic integrity of materials may occur if the historic materials from Building 248 cannot be reused, or if existing historic materials from Building 249 cannot be repaired due to degradation. All rehabilitation work must be done in a sensitive manner that results in a minimal impact on aspects of workmanship, materials, and design of the hangar to be preserved. Overall, the loss of one structure and the stabilization and retention of the other would reduce the total impact of loss, mitigating the loss of the other.

Despite its advantages, executing Option 4 would not inherently address ongoing concerns related to flooding. Flood adaptation measures would need to be taken to stabilize and protect the hangars both in the short and long term. In addition to flood adaptations, all immediate preservation concerns must be addressed through protection and stabilization efforts. See Section 4 for further discussion of flood adaptations and immediate preservation concerns. 38 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 24 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Æ completed a site inspection, reviewed existing documentation, and analyzed four project options for the hangars at the Santa Barbara Airport. The City is considering three project options:
• Full demolition of both hangars,
• Restore and reuse both hangars in place, and
• Relocate, restore, and reuse both hangars.

Following site visitation and taking into consideration historic preservation concerns, land-use priorities, and economic feasibility, a fourth project option was recommended:
• Deconstruction of one hangar and restore and reuse of the second hangar in place.

Overall, Option 4 is a compromise that represents a suitable and realistic preservation approach.

It is also more economically feasible and sustainable than the other proposed options. Reusing existing historic materials from a building that is beyond repair, Option 4 rehabilitates one historic hangar for reuse while simultaneously giving “new life” to what is no longer a viable structure. The two hangars were built at roughly the same time and share design elements and character-defining features.

Option 4 represents a multistep preservation approach that achieves a compromise between all interested parties. The complexity of this project will require the involvement of highly skilled and trained professionals who have experience working on historically significant buildings and are familiar with the SOI Standards as well as the California Historic Building Code (CHBC).

This assumes that the City’s Historic Resource Guidelines will be followed in the final project selection.

Regardless of the final option chosen, a team of trained professionals with historic preservation experience should work closely with contractors and engineers to undertake the necessary work utilizing the SOI Standards for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. These preservation professionals should be involved with all aspects of the project throughout the planning, design, partial disassembly, full deconstruction, and construction process to ensure consistent and ongoing compliance with all applicable regulations and guidelines. If designed and implemented appropriately the project could result in a Class II, less than significant impact.

4.1.1 Material Considerations
The 2022 Praxis Engineering report recommends many repairs or replacements of historic materials, including all roof rafters, walls, metal sheathing, and associated connections (Praxis Engineering 2022:7). All work should be completed per the SOI Standards, which establishes that the repair of historic features is always preferred over replacement. However, if repair of historic materials is not possible due to deterioration and replacement is required, the SOI 39 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 25 Standards allow for replacement as long as “the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials” (Grimmer 2017:76). Further, the re-creation of missing features requires substantiation via historical documentation and physical evidence.

4.1.2 Structural Concerns
The Praxis Engineering report recommends the addition of new structural elements to add support and stability to Building 249, including the sistering of additional members to the primary roof trusses or the addition of vertical supports for stability (Praxis Engineering 2022:7).

These structural modifications are necessary because the two existing primary roof trusses can no longer support the applied loads.

Leaving known structural issues untreated is not consistent with the SOI Standards (Grimmer 2017:121). Per the Standards for Rehabilitation, weakened structural members can be paired or sistered with a new member, braced, or otherwise supplemented and reinforced (Grimmer 2017:122). To remain consistent with the SOI Standards, the new structural reinforcement must be installed in a manner that minimizes its impact on the historic fabric and overall characterdefining features of the building (Grimmer 2017:123).

4.1.3 Life and Safety Concerns
Structural deficiencies in both hangars need to be addressed because the hangars are not currently structurally sound or safe to occupy. It is pertinent that life and safety concerns are addressed regardless of which project option is selected. Per the Standards for Rehabilitation, the impact of meeting life-safety codes must be considered, including public health, occupational health, life safety, electrical, seismic, structural, and building codes that will have an effect on both exterior and interior spaces, character-defining features, and finishes (Grimmer 2017:23).

Even the most limited treatment approach taken under the Standards for Preservation would allow for “limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional” (Grimmer 2017:27).

Installation of fire sprinkler and alarm systems, for example, must be done according to the SOI Standards as well as the CHBC. The CHBC offers flexible alternative code requirements for historic buildings. The CHBC would apply to work on the hangars as they are recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and listed in the City’s Historical Resource Inventory.

Use of the CHBC allows for certain alternatives to the City’s prevailing code but does not negate the need to comply with life and safety requirements as well as the Americans with Disability Act. Additionally, relief from the Uniform Building Code or flood control requirements indicate that the hangars be officially listed in the NRHP as exemptions do not apply to properties that have only been identified as being potentially eligible for listing (Lenvik & Minor Architects 2002:3). Use of the CHBC may not be available under Option 3 if the hangars are found ineligible for listing following relocation.

Æ recommends engaging with City officials early in the project planning phase to ensure all code requirements can be satisfied without negatively impacting the historic hangars’ characterdefining features (Grimmer 2017:23). This proactive approach will help to streamline the permitting process, reducing costs and lead time.
40 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 26

4.1.4 Flood Adaptation and Immediate Protection/Stabilization If project Option 2 or 4 are selected and the hangars remain in place, flood adaptations must be made to prevent further damage to the hangars. Flood adaptations may not be required under project Option 3 if the hangars are relocated outside the floodway. Regardless of which option is selected, however, immediate preservation concerns must be addressed through appropriate protection and stabilization efforts.

4.1.4.1 Flood Adaptation
To protect the hangars from further deterioration, flood adaptation must be addressed in both the short and long term. Regardless of which project option is selected, all flood adaptation measures should be undertaken following the SOI’s Guidelines on Flood Adaptation for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Guidelines), developed specifically to provide technical preservation guidance for historic properties at risk of flooding. The Guidelines are applied in conjunction with the SOI Standards. The Guidelines do not replace applicable federal, state, and local code requirements and regulations, which must be considered when planning flood adaptation projects (Eggleston et al. 2021:12).

The hangars are in a floodway, and measures must be taken to ensure they are not at risk of deterioration due to future flooding events. Any proposed flood control treatments should minimize changes to the building’s historic character and limit impacts to character-defining features. Per the Guidelines, the ideal adaptation treatment will reduce the risk of flood damage as much as possible without destroying significant materials, features, or spaces (Eggleston et al. 2021:4). The goal should always be to minimize the impacts on a building’s historic character to the greatest extent possible while adapting the building to be more resilient (Eggleston et al. 2021:24).

A potential treatment for the hangars is site and landscape improvements and adaptations. These adaptations can include floodwalls, basic regrading, and complex stormwater management systems (Eggleston et al. 2021:32). Per the Praxis Engineering report, the use of a concrete flood wall has been a successful flood mitigation technique at Building 249; therefore, further use of this treatment measure should be explored (Praxis Engineering 2022:7). Expanded use of concrete walls as flood walls would be an effective solution at the site, largely due to their limited potential for negative impacts on the integrity of the historic hangars. Flood walls can be built against the hangars if they are constructed in a manner that removal would not harm the historic fabric and that does not visually alter or obscure character-defining features. Walls constructed away from the hangars and completely detached from the historic fabric would also be acceptable. Regardless of attached or detached construction, the flood walls must be constructed using methods and materials that are easily differentiated from the historic fabric but are compatible with their appearance in terms of scale, massing, color, and texture. The use of French drains or sluice gates may be more appropriate flood control interventions and should also be considered.

The City is currently considering constructing a concrete stem wall as a flood adaptation measure. The required height of the stem wall is based on the Design Flood Elevation (DFE), which is calculated by the City’s Building and Safety Division. The hangars are currently considered Design Class 1 structures, but the actual DFE and design classification will be 41 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 27 dependent on the final use of the hangars (City of Santa Barbara 2023). The DFE and design classifications for potential reuse options are as follows:

1. Restore in place, use as a hangar for essential aircraft or vehicles: Design Class 4,

21.2 foot DFE

2. Restore in place, use as a museum: Design Class 3, 21.2 foot DFE

3. Restore in place, use as an office or as a hangar for non-essential aircraft or vehicles:

Design Class 2, 20.2 foot DFE

4. Relocation, any use: Design Class and DFE cannot be determined as a new BFE calculation for the proposed location will be required.

As the existing grade is 15 feet above grade, the concrete stem wall would need to be 6.2 feet tall for potential reuse Options 1 and 2, and 5.2 feet tall for potential reuse Option 3. The construction of a 5.2- or 6.2-foot-tall concrete stem wall could be differentiated from the historic hangars but would likely not be visually compatible. To remain consistent with the SOI Standards, the new stem walls must have a minimal impact on the historic fabric and overall character-defining features of the building (Grimmer 2017:123). While a proposed design has not been reviewed for consistency with the SOI Standards, the required height of the new stem walls would negatively impact the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the hangars.

Any flood adaptations that are visually intrusive or otherwise negatively impact the hangars’ character-defining features should be avoided, including the proposed concrete stem wall. If the only possible flood adaptation measures that can be completed while the hangars remain in place damage the historic materials or negatively impact the character-defining features, relocation outside the floodway but within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara Airport would be preferred.

Additional treatment options include dry floodproofing, which establishes a watertight seal on the exterior of the foundation and seals all interior spaces below the established flood risk level.

Elevating the building on a new foundation, or elevating the interior only, are also options but require structural adaptations that may not be financially feasible. These treatments, while effective at flood mitigation, can result in significant changes to a building that negatively impact historic materials, appearance, and character-defining features and should be thoroughly studied before being selected for incorporation in the project design (Eggleston et al. 2021:46).

Relocating or demolishing a historic building for flood management purposes would be the most extreme options. If the hangars must be substantially altered in order to be flood-proofed in their current location, relocation outside the floodway should be explored. Relocation requires a significant amount of planning and has many technical limitations and can potentially impact the hangars’ eligibility for the NRHP or the CRHR as previously discussed in Section 3.3. Per the Guidelines, moving a historic building for flood management purposes requires that: (1) the building be structurally stable to either move safely, or be feasibly partially disassembled or fully dismantled and reassembled on the new site; and (2) that the receiving site must be located outside the established flood risk area while remaining similar in character to the building’s original setting (Eggleston et al. 2021:115). Demolition is never a recommended treatment as it 42 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 28 is not consistent with the SOI Standards or Guidelines and should only be considered if no other options are possible (Eggleston et al. 2021:126).

These permanent treatment options can be extremely effective but require a great deal of lead time to implement. Further damage from flooding can be mitigated in the short-term using temporary protective measures, such as sandbags and flood-wrapping systems. These treatments are generally low cost and typically have a low impact on a property’s historic character as they do not involve permanent changes to a property. Temporary protective measures are intended for shallow floods of limited duration. Additionally, they require time and people to deploy them and may not be appropriate if flooding at the property occurs without sufficient warning. Flood patterns at the site must be considered to determine which, if any, temporary treatment is appropriate (Eggleston et al. 2021:26–27). Nonetheless, temporary flood measures should be implemented as a stabilization effort to deter further deterioration of the two hangars and their materials.

4.1.4.2 Immediate Protection and Stabilization
From initial conception to completion, the overall process for a historic preservation project can take years. In the meantime, immediate measures to protect and stabilize the hangars must be taken to prevent further deterioration. The Standards for Preservation guide these preventative actions, commonly known as mothballing.

As outlined in NPS Preservation Brief 31, “Mothballing Historic Buildings,” these protective measures are used to “de-activate” a property for an extended period of time and help to protect vacant or unused historic buildings until they can be rehabilitated for new uses (Park 1993:1).

These include waterproofing to eliminate leaks and other moisture penetration, securing the buildings from unauthorized entry, and ensuring that interior spaces are adequately ventilated.

Mothballing measures are intended to be temporary and as easily reversible as possible. They function as immediate forms of stabilization that are intended to support an eventual rehabilitation or restoration project. For the hangars, a comprehensive mothballing effort would ideally include a combination of the following treatments:
• Taking appropriate flood adaptation measures.
• Documenting the character-defining features and physical condition of the property. • Preparing a condition assessment of the property with emphasis on foundations, structural systems, exterior materials, roofs and gutters, porches and steps, windows and entries, interior finishes, stairways, mechanical systems, and site drainage. • Structural stabilization of roofs, walls, foundations, and interior framing. • Controlling or exterminating pests.
• Securing the exterior envelope to eliminate leaks or other potentially damaging moisture penetration.
• Securing openings against intruders.
43 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 29 • Ensuring adequate interior ventilation by installing vents in covered window and door openings, interior fans, or minimal heating equipment.
• Inspecting and deactivating or modifying utility systems. • Developing a maintenance and monitoring plan.

In summary, Rehabilitation and Restoration is a lengthy process. Æ is recommending Option 4 as it provides a meaningful compromise between the most extreme options of full demolition and complete restoration in place. While Option 4 will require the deconstruction of one of the hangars, the preservation of the second hangar ensures the continued preservation of this building type at the Santa Barbara Airport. Repurposing salvaged historic materials from the demolished hangar to rehabilitate the remaining hangar will ensure compliance with the SOI Standard. While repair is always the preferred treatment, implementing Option 4 would result in replacements made using in-kind materials. This salvage approach guarantees the retention of important character-defining features such as sliding aircraft doors, redwood trusses, windows, galvanized sheet metal siding, and corrugated sheet metal roofs. Further, this approach will reduce material costs to render the project more economically feasible. A careful and methodological salvage promotes preservation as it can give a “second life” to historic materials that would otherwise become construction waste (Eggleston et al. 2021:125). In the meantime, as preservation planning ensues, the hangars are at risk of integrity loss and structural instability due to degradation and flood damage. Æ recommends taking immediate preservation measures, including mothballing and flood protection, to protect both hangars while project options are being considered.
44 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 30 5 REFERENCES
Architectural Resources Group
2001 Hangar Buildings Nos. 248 & 249 Historic and Architectural Evaluation, Santa Barbara Airport, Goleta, California. Architectural Resources Group, San Francisco, California.

City of Santa Barbara
2021 Historic Resource Design Guidelines Santa Barbara, California. Adopted by the Santa Barbara City Council.
2023 Base Flood Elevation (Bfe) Determination. Public Works Department, Engineering Division. Building and Safety Division, Santa Barbara, California.

Coffman Associates
2017 Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Airport Master Plan.

City of Santa Barbara, SCH# 2014061096.

Curtis, John Obed
1979 Moving Historic Buildings. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Publication No. 9. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

Eggleston, Jennifer, Jennifer Parker, and Jennifer Wellock 2021 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Rehabilitation & Guidelines on Flood Adaptation for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.

Goodwin, R. Christopher, Deborah K. Cannan, Leo Hirrel, Katherine E. Grandine, Kathryn M.

Kuranda, Bethany M. Usher, Hugh B. McAloon, and Martha R. Williams 1995 National Historic Context for Dod Installations, 1790–1940, Vol. III. U.S.

Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland, Contract No. DACW31-89-D0059.

Grimmer, Anne E.
2009 Retaining Industrial Character in Historic Buildings. Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (ITS) Bulletin No. 55. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.
2017 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Rev. ed. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.
45 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 31 Lenvik & Minor Architects
2002 Santa Barbara Airport, City of Santa Barbara: Conditions and Further Use Analysis Study for Airport Hangar Buildings No. 248 & 249 Santa Barbara, California.

Submitted to the City of Santa Barbara.

Melton, Paula
2020 Buildings That Last: Design for Adaptability, Deconstruction, and Reuse. Prepared for the American Institute of Architects.

Mikesell, Stephen D.
2000 Historic Context: Themes, Property Types, and Registration Requirements. California Historic Military Buildings and Structures Inventory, Vol. III. JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, California, Contract No. DACA05-97-D-0013.

Modugno, Tom
2023 Two Hangars. Goleta History, February 23, https://goletahistory.com/two-hangars/, accessed April 2, 2023.

Morlet, Aubrie, and M. Colleen Hamilton
2014a Historic Structures Report for Eight Buildings at the Santa Barbara Airport, City of Santa Barbara, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Prepared for Coffman Associates, Scottsdale, Arizona.
2014b National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Evaluation of Eight Buildings at the Santa Barbara Airport, City of Santa Barbara, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Prepared for Coffman Associates, Scottsdale, Arizona.

National Park Service
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.
2022a The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:

Preservation as a Treatment and Standards for Preservation, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment-standards-preservation.htm, accessed December 21, 2022.
2022b The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:

Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment-standards-rehabilitation.htm, accessed December 21, 2022.
2022c The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:

Restoration as a Treatment and Standards for Restoration, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment-standards-restoration.htm, accessed December 21, 2022.
46 of 136
Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis 32 Office of Historic Preservation
2011 California Register and National Register: A Comparison. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
2023 How Can Substantial Adverse Change Be Avoided or Mitigated?, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21727, accessed April 25, 2023. Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks.

Park, Sharon C.
1993 Mothballing Historic Buildings. Preservation Briefs No. 31. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.

Praxis Engineering
2022 Addendum Visual Structural Observation and Analysis of Hangar No. 248 and 249, Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara, CA. Praxis Engineering, San Luis Obispo, California. Submitted to Jeff Gorrel, Lenvik & Minor Architects, Santa Barbara, California.

Strain, Larry
n.d. 10 Steps to Reducing Embodied Carbon. Materials,
https://www.aia.org/articles/70446-ten-steps-to-reducing-embodied-carbon, accessed January 10, 2023. American Institute of Architects.

Triem, Judith P., and Mitchel R. Stone
1995 Determinations of Eligibility for Historic Resources at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. San Buenaventura Research Associates, Santa Paula, California. Prepared for Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California. 47 of 136
Section II
48 of 136 48 of 136
Comparative Development Estimates

COST EXTENSIONS
Consolidate In Place
Hanger 248 Hanger 249 Hanger 248 Hanger 249 Site Hanger 249

1.0 LAND RELATED COSTS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

2.0 ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING & CONSULTANTS $ 41,273 $ 147,982 $ 113,009 $ 466,933 $ 347,959 $ 115,403 $ 113,009

3.0 FEES & PERMITS $ 7,913 $ 77,852 $ 59,453 $ 118,460 $ 88,276 $ 13,160 $ 59,453

4.0 CONSTRUCTION COSTS:

4.1 General Requirements $44,500 144,915 110,667 387,852 289,027 $8,668 110,667

4.2 Demolition, Off-SIte, Site Work & Utilities 214,948 52,534 40,119 335,602 250,091 468,724 40,119

4.3 Concrete 78,518 - 59,962 465,891 59,131 59,962 -

4.4 Masonry - - - - - - -

4.5 Metals 7,435 - 5,678 19,457 14,499 5,678 -

4.6 Wood & Plastic 84,519 - 64,545 196,052 146,098 64,545 -

4.7 Thermal & Moisture Protection 78,113 - 59,653 224,450 167,260 59,653 -

4.8 Doors & Windows 14,102 - 10,770 63,226 47,116 10,770 -

4.9 Finishes 2,276 - 1,738 36,564 27,247 3,621 1,738

4.10 Specialties - 359 274 1,700 1,267 374 274

4.11 Equipment - - - - - - -

4.12 Furnishings - - - - - - -

4.13 Special Construction 196,923 - 150,384 319,826 238,335 150,384 -

4.14 Conveying Systems - - - - - - -

4.15 Mechanical Systems 1,148 35,017 26,741 78,944 58,829 2,198 26,741

4.16 Electrical Systems 1,303 44,961 34,335 97,103 72,361 1,772 34,335 Subtotal Direct Cost $ 261,899 $ 739,674 $ 564,866 $ 2,226,667 $ 1,371,263 $ 485,355 $ 564,866 Contractor's Fee @ 8% 20,952 59,174 45,189 178,133 109,701 38,828 45,189 Estimating Contingency @ 15% 42,428 119,827 91,508 360,720 222,145 78,628 91,508 Total Construction Costs $ 325,278 $ 918,675 $ 701,563 $ 2,765,521 $ 1,703,109 $ 602,811 $ 701,563 Per Gross Building Square Foot

5.0 FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

6.0 FINANCE COSTS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

7.0 DEVELOPMENT CONTINGENCY $18,723 57,225 $ $ 43,701 $ 167,546 $ 124,855 $36,569 43,701 $ TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $ 393,187 $ 1,201,735 $ 917,727 $ 3,518,460 $ 2,264,199 $ 767,942 $ 917,727 Per Square Foot $ 40.96 $ 250.36 $ 191.19 $ 733.01 $ 471.71 $ 159.99 $ 191.19 SCENARIO TOTALS $ 393,187
Per Square Foot $ 40.96
$ 1,685,669
$ 220.78 $ 602.36 $ 351.18
General Western Aero Hanger Restoration Feasibility Study May 20, 2023
Document &
Demo
Repair / Restore In Place Repair / Restore Elsewhere DEVELOPMENT BUDGET $ 2,119,462 $ 5,782,659

49 of 136 49 of 136
1009 Morro Street, Suite 205 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 489-9900 • www.praxis-eng.com October 19, 2022
Jeff Gorrell
Lenvik and Minor
829 De La Vina, Suite 205
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Subject: Addendum visual structural observation and analysis of Hangars No. 248 and 249, Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara, CA
To whom it may concern:

The purpose of this report is to provide an addendum to existing 2002 report prepared by Structural Engineer, Robert F. Swalley, dated August 23, 2001 (Swalley’s report). Swalley’s report analysis and recommendations still apply to today’s conditions and should be considered for future use of the building, unless superseded by recommendations in this report. The observation and recommendations on this report were based on California Building Code 2019 & California Historical Building Code 2019.

Building 248 & 249 Existing Structure System
The hangar Building No. 248 and 249 are located in Santa Barbara Airport in the city of Santa Barbara. The buildings are located near the northeast corner of the airport property. Building 248 and 249 are both aircraft hangar type structures that are 80’ wide and 60’ deep and consist of wood stud walls with a curved roof supported by bowstring type wood trusses at the front and two (2) intermediate locations in the building, spaced approximately 20’ on center. The trusses support 2”x8” wood purlins which in turn support sheet metal roofing.

Description of Building 248
The roof and wall sheathing of the structure consist of 16-gauge and 20-gauge metal siding, respectively. The wood utilized in the trusses, purlins and walls appears to be clear graded structural redwood. The floor is concrete slab on grade that appears to be flat and is supported by continuous footing around the perimeter of the building with larger pad footing at the truss bearing locations. See figure 1, and Appendix I, for reference of Building 248 framing plan. 50 of 136 50 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 2 of 9
FIG. 1 BUILDING 248 FLOOR PLAN
Gravity

1. Roof Sheathing: The current roof sheathing consists of 16 gauge metal roofing with unknown attachments. The sheathing appears to be able to support current general dead load & live loads for this type of structure and be used to protect the building from exterior weathering.

The sheathing does not show visual signs of corrosion or excessive local deflections, excluding at locations where other members of the structure has failed. The sheathing does not meet current diaphragm standards; however, it has performed over the lifespan of the building and for historical preservation can be used even though it is not an approved code diaphragm.

2. Roof Purlins: The current roof purlins consist of 2”x8” redwood members at 30” on center with blocking. The purlins are notched to bear upon on the bowstring trusses. The purlins appear to be able to support current dead & live loads for this type of structure.

The purlins do not show any visual signs of deterioration, deflection and/or failure but may need additional visual review if reused. The roof that has settled in excess of 24” will no longer be structural stable and will need to be completely replaced back to a location 51 of 136 51 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 3 of 9
where the deflection no longer exceeds 2”-4”. All associated members affected by this failure will need to be removed and replaced, unless approved by engineer of record during demolition.

3. Bowstring Type Truss: The current truss spans approximately 80 feet. The gable truss at the door spans approximately 50 feet. The truss consists of (2)-2”x6” top chord, (2)-2”x12” bottom chord with two (2) splice connections, and 3”x6” web members. All web members are bolted to truss at top and bottom chords. On the easterly side (grid line 2 per figure 1) the truss sits on a header type structure compromised of (7)-2”x12” built up beam. On the westerly side (grid line 1 per figure 1) the truss sits on 8”x10” post. The post on northerly side (grid line C per figure 1) contains (2)-2”x6” kickers, and the other have been removed.

For an elevation view of the truss, please see Appendix III. The gable truss at the door sits on approximately 15 feet long bearing walls on each end.

The intermediate trusses (grid line B and C) have failed on each end of the 20 ft of the total span. The failures are comprised of deflection and bolt shear which have compromised the members axially. The failure has contributed to splitting web and bottom chord elements. The trusses if let be, will continue to fail in other locations without reinforcing other members. Regarding the gable truss, due to half the tributary load and shorter span; this truss is less of a concern and is subject to further analysis.

4. Stud Walls: The current stud walls consist of 2”x6” redwood members at 24” on center. In addition, the northerly gable of the building consists of 2”x6” redwood members at 24” on center.

In some areas the studs show visual deterioration at lower portion of wall, which have caused voids between the studs and bottom sill plate, specifically at the northerly portion of the easterly wall. The studs no longer have bearing and will contribute to future failures and settling if not repaired. In addition, the allowable bending stress for walls are exceeded based on the existing heights.

5. Concrete Footings: No excavations were made to determine depth, size, and condition of footings. Swalley’s Report gives a brief substructure review and description of concrete.

No substantial differential settlement was noted. The slab was relatively uncracked. No new observations or determinations from the original report appear to be required.

Lateral

1. In-Plane Loading:

In the north and south load direction, the hangar utilizes two spans of 7/8” diameter rod cross bracing on the westerly wall (grid line 1). Due to obstruction of existing “wall type header”, no system was observed on the easterly wall (grid line 2). The roof utilizes 2”x8” purlins to transfer and resist in plane loading.

In the east and west direction, the hangar utilizes 2”x6” let in braces on the northerly and southerly walls. The roof utilizes 2”x8” blocking to transfer and resist in plane loading. 52 of 136 52 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 4 of 9
There were no failures or fatigue observed on any of these lateral components. However, the current code does not allow for this type of lateral bracing system, for the exception of the diagonal rods.

2. Out-of-Plane Loading:

In the north and south load direction, the roof utilizes 2”x6” cross bracing and built up “T” beams to support the north and south wall.

There were no failures nor fatigue observed on any of these lateral components.

In resisting loads in the east and west direction, the hangar utilizes the wood bowstring type truss to transfer loads.

The metal siding from the westerly wall of the building has collapsed and failed. The purpose of the metal siding is to protect the inside of the building from outside environment: and work as a cladding and not a structural sheathing. In addition, there is deflection and separation (approximately 8”) between the point of connection of top of wall and roof. The easterly wall connection shows a similar deflection at northerly portion of the wall as well.

Flood
Building is located on a downward sloping site that is located within a floodway. The site naturally slopes toward the south, toward the front of the hangar. Exterior walls are in a floodplain and subject to water exposure. Per city staff and architect, the current finished floor is below the existing Base Flood Elevation (BFE).

As a result, it has caused deterioration on lower portion of walls and bottom sill plates.

Conclusions for Building 248
Building 248 is generally in poor construction based on our visual observation. Calculations were performed to check the viability of the major structural components and the following items were concluded.

The roof in the southwest portion of the structure has failed along with the 80’ span wood trusses.

The roof deflection is over a very large area and has caused additional damage to a majority of the west side of the roof. All the roof purlins, walls, metal sheathing and associated connections will need to be removed and either reinstalled or replaced for this portion of the building after the trusses have been reset to their original elevations
The two primary roof trusses in the middle of the building can no longer support the loads applied.

The current members that are overstressed and are all the top chord members, the bottom chord end two members along with the diagonal web members in the end two bays. These members cannot support the current loads without additional members sistered on or added vertical supports. The current trusses will need to be shored up, re-leveled, failed members replaced and have new columns and footings added at the second node (roughly 20’ from the exterior wall) each side. For calculations of truss analysis, please see Appendix IV. 53 of 136 53 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 5 of 9
The walls of the structure no longer span from the foundation to the roof in all locations and with the new flood elevations will need to have concrete walls installed under the existing walls to a height that complies with current local code. The foundation must be designed to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement from loads such as fast-moving water, breaking waves, floating debris, erosion, and high winds, seismic and wind forces. Additional review and analysis will be required for proper material specification and sizing. This will require the walls to be shored and cut to the appropriate height and have new anchorage added to support the seismic and gravity loads. In addition, in locations where the walls have let in bracing it should be considered to have additional rod bracing added or plywood sheathing added to the walls to support the in plane seismic loads. In the cases where the walls are no longer plumb the walls will need to be plumbed and the tops of the walls rebuild to have continuous double top plates, blocking and bracing to the metal roof diaphragms on all sides.

The foundations appear to be in good condition but will need to be adjusted to support new concrete stem walls that will resist flood loading below the required BFE. This will require the addition of a perimeter footing and reinforcing that extend up through the existing slab and footing up to the recommended height.

The gabled end walls will need to have additional bracing added along with some additional members to span between these braces. This will be a beam parallel to the wall anchored to the wall with additional braces or horizontal rod braces.

Description of Building 249
The roof and wall sheathing of the structure consist of 16-gauge and 20-gauge metal siding, respectively. The wood utilized in the trusses, purlins and walls appears to be clear graded structural redwood. The floor is concrete slab on grade that appears to be flat and is supported by continuous footing around the perimeter of the building with larger pad footing at the truss bearing locations. The hangar consists of a short concrete retaining wall at the northeasterly portion of the building. See figure 2, and Appendix Il, for reference of Building 249 framing plan. 54 of 136 54 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 6 of 9
FIG. 2 BUILDING 249 FLOOR PLAN
Gravity

1. Roof Sheathing: The current roof sheathing consists of 16-gauge metal roofing with unknown attachments. The sheathing appears to be able to support current general dead load & live loads for this type of structure and be used to protect the building from exterior weathering.

The sheathing does not show visual signs of corrosion or excessive local deflections. The sheathing does not meet current diaphragm standards; however, it has performed over the lifespan of the building and for historical preservation can be used even though it is not an approved code diaphragm.

2. Roof Purlins: The current roof purlins consist of 2”x8” redwood members at 30” on center with blocking. The purlins are notched to bear upon on the bowstring trusses. The purlins appear to be able to support current dead & live loads for this type of span and roof materials.
55 of 136 55 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 7 of 9
The purlins do not show any visual signs of deterioration, deflection and/or failure but may need additional visual review if reused.

3. Bowstring Type Truss: The current intermediate truss spans approximately 80 feet. The gable truss at the door spans approximately 50 feet. The truss consists of (2)-2”x6” top chord, (2)-2”x12” bottom chord with two (2) splice connections, and 3x6 web members. All web members are bolted to truss at top and bottom chords. The intermediate trusses sit on 8x10 post on each end. Each post contains (2)-2”x6” kickers. For an elevation view of the truss, please see Appendix III. The gable truss at the door sits on approximately 15 feet long bearing walls on each end.

An intermediate truss (grid line B) has failed on the easterly end of the 20 ft. The failures are comprised of deflection and bolt shear which have compromised the members axially.

The failure has contributed to splitting web and bottom chord elements. In addition, it has also caused a complete post failure due to splitting of bolt shear and transfer of loads to the column that were not intended in the original design. The trusses if let be, will continue to fail in other locations without reinforcing other members with the inevitable complete and total collapse. Regarding the gable truss, due to half the tributary load and shorter span; this truss is less of a concern and is subject to further analysis.

4. Stud Walls: The current stud walls consist of 2”x6” redwood members at 24” on center. In addition, the northerly gable of the building consists of 2”x6” redwood members at 24” on center.

The stud walls and stud gable do not show any visual signs of deterioration, deflection and/or failure. However, the allowable bending stress for walls are exceeded based on the existing heights.

5. Concrete Footings: No excavations were made to determine depth, size, and condition of footings. Swalley’s Report gives a brief substructure review and description of concrete.

No substantial differential settlement was noted. The slab was extensively cracked with some spalling. No new observations or determinations from the original report appear to be required.

Lateral

3. In-Plane Loading:

In the north and south load direction, the hangar utilizes one span of 7/8” diameter rod cross bracing on the westerly wall (grid line 1). The easterly wall (grid 2) consists of a combination of 7/8” diameter rod cross bracing and 2”x6” let in braces. The roof utilizes 2”x8” purlins to transfer and resist in plane loading.

In the east and west direction, the hangar utilizes 2”x6” let in braces on the northerly and southerly walls. The roof utilizes 2”x8” blocking to transfer and resist in plane loading.

There were no failures or fatigue observed on any of these lateral components. However, the current code does not allow for this type of lateral bracing system, for the exception of the diagonal rods.
56 of 136 56 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 8 of 9

4. Out-of-Plane Loading:

In the north and south load direction, the roof utilizes 2”x6” cross bracing to support the north and south wall.

In resisting loads in the east and west direction, the hangar utilizes the wood bowstring type truss to transfer loads.

There were no failures nor fatigue observed on any of these lateral components.

Flood
Building is located on a downward sloping site that is located within a floodway. The site naturally slopes toward the south, toward the front of the hangar. Exterior walls are in a floodplain and subject to water exposure. However, the lower portion of the northerly wall consists of a concrete retaining wall.

There were no deterioration, failures, nor fatigue observed that could be caused by water exposure.

Conclusions for Building 249
Building 249 is in a general fair structural condition based on our visual observation. Calculations were performed to check the viability of the major structural components and the following items were concluded.

A portion of the truss has failed along with its supporting column. All of the roof purlins, walls, metal sheathing and associated connections will need to be removed and either reinstalled or replaced for this portion of the building after the trusses and column have been reset to their original elevations.

The two primary roof trusses in the middle of the building can no longer support the current allowable loads. The current members that are overstressed are the following: all the top chord members, the bottom chord end two members, and the diagonal web members in the end two bays. These members cannot support the current loads without additional members sistered on or added vertical supports. The current trusses will need to be shored up, re-leveled, the failed members replaced and have new columns and footings added at the second node (roughly 20’ from the exterior wall) each side. For calculations of truss analysis, please see Appendix IV.

The walls of the structure will need to be verified with the new flood elevations that the existing concrete walls comply with the current local code required height above BFE. The foundation must be designed to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement from loads such as fastmoving water, breaking waves, floating debris, erosion, and high winds, seismic and wind forces.

If needed, this will require the walls to be shored and cut to the appropriate height and have new anchorage added to support the seismic and gravity loads. In addition, in locations where the walls have let in bracing it should be considered to have additional rod bracing added or plywood sheathing added to the walls to support the in plane seismic loads. In the cases where the walls are no longer plumb the walls will need to be plumbed and the tops of the walls rebuild to have continuous double top plates, blocking and bracing to the metal roof diaphragms on all sides. 57 of 136 57 of 136
22072_Hangar analysis review R05.docx 9 of 9
The foundations appear to be in good condition; however, they will need to be adjusted to support new concrete stem walls that will resist flood loading below the BFE. This will require the addition of a perimeter footing and reinforcing that extend up through the existing slab and footing up to the recommended height. In addition, per Swalley’s report, epoxy injection is recommended for existing cracks in the slab.

The gabled end walls will need to have additional bracing added along with some additional members to span between these braces. This will be a beam parallel to the wall anchored to the wall with additional braces or horizontal rod braces.

Recommendations for Building 248 and 249
The structure was reviewed for general structural performance and uses for the following three uses:

1. Restore in place as same use

2. Relocate and reuse

3. Restore in place for new use
The restore in place option with continued reuse as an airplane hangar is feasible for both buildings with the following notes. The added columns and footings under the existing trusses will minimize the size of airplane or wingspan that may be placed in the hanger due to the locations.

The repairs for Building 248 are more extensive than what would typically be financially feasible.

The airport will need to evaluate the overall cost of the repairs along with limited use to see if reuse is an option. However, Building 249 may have much less costs associated and if the materials were taken from Building 248 and reused in Building 249 a large amount of material costs may be salvaged along with any historical value.

The relocate and reuse option has very similar concerns as the restore in place with the added cost of dismantling and rebuilding in a new location. The advantages to this option would be that all structural concerns could be addressed in a manner that makes the structure more stable and have more long-term durability and stability.

The option for restore in place and use for other than an airplane hangar will have the same limitations as the reuse without the added disadvantage of limited wing spans. The added supports can be integrated into the design such that the historic nature of the structures will not be lost while adding the much-needed structural integrity. We see the use of material from Building 248 on Building 249 equally advantageous in this option. 58 of 136 58 of 136

APPENDIX I
BUILDING 248
59 of 136 59 of 136
Drawn: Checked: Title: Project: Approved: Project No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale: 1009 Morro Street, Suite 205 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 489-9900 | www.praxis-eng.com PRAXIS Engineering X:\02-Projects\07-2022 Projects\22072 - Santa Barbara Airport Hanger (SB Co) S - SB\03-Structural\04-Drawings\Working_Set\EXHIBIT\HANGAR PLAN AND ELEV.dwg, 10/4/2022 10:14 AM, Yosimar Ramos FRAMING PLAN-BLDG 248 1 ELEVATION A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D 60 of 136 60 of 136

APPENDIX II
BUILDING 249
61 of 136 61 of 136
Drawn: Checked: Title: Project: Approved: Project No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale: 1009 Morro Street, Suite 205 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 489-9900 | www.praxis-eng.com PRAXIS Engineering X:\02-Projects\07-2022 Projects\22072 - Santa Barbara Airport Hanger (SB Co) S - SB\03-Structural\04-Drawings\Working_Set\EXHIBIT\HANGAR PLAN AND ELEV.dwg, 10/4/2022 10:15 AM, Yosimar Ramos FRAMING PLAN-BLDG 249 1 ELEVATION A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 62 of 136 62 of 136

APPENDIX III

TYPICAL BOWSTRING TRUSS
63 of 136 63 of 136
Drawn: Checked: Title: Project: Approved: Project No.: Date: Drawing No.: Scale: 1009 Morro Street, Suite 205 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 489-9900 | www.praxis-eng.com PRAXIS Engineering X:\02-Projects\07-2022 Projects\22072 - Santa Barbara Airport Hanger (SB Co) S - SB\03-Structural\04-Drawings\Working_Set\EXHIBIT\HANGAR PLAN AND ELEV.dwg, 10/4/2022 10:15 AM, Yosimar Ramos BOWSTRING TRUSS ELEV. 1
64 of 136 64 of 136

APPENDIX IV

RISA SOFTWARE - TRUSS ANALYSIS
65 of 136 65 of 136
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
BLDG 248-2
Oct 04, 2022
TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-B.r3d

EXISTING CONDITION
(WITH NO KICKER BRACE)
APPLIES TO BLDG 248-LINE B
66 of 136 66 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
10/4/2022
10:34:45 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-B.r3d ] Page 1 Wood Properties
Label Type Database Species Grade Cm Ci EmodNu Therm. Coeff. [1e⁵°F⁻¹] Density [k/ft³] 1 DF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Douglas Fir-Larch No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 2 SP Solid Sawn Visually Graded Southern Pine No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 3 HF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Hem-Fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 4 SPF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Spruce-Pine-fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 5 24F-1.8E DF Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 6 24F-1.8E DF Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 7 24F-1.8E SP Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 8 24F-1.8E SP Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 9 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM SCL Boise Cascade 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 10 1.35E LSL_SolidStart SCL Louisiana Pacific 1.35E LSL_SolidStart na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 11 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL SCL Roseburg Forest Products 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 12 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL SCL TrusJoist 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 13 LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F Custom N/A LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 14 LVL_Microlam_1.9E_2600F Custom N/A LVL_Microllam_1.9E_2600F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 15 PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F Custom N/A PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 16 LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F Custom N/A LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 17 Redwood Solid Sawn Visually Graded Redwood No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 Wood Section Sets
Label Shape Type Design List Material Design RuleArea [in²]Iyy [in⁴]Izz [in⁴] J [in⁴] 1 TOP CHORD 2-2X6FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 24 32 72 75.125 2 BOTT CHORD 2-2X12FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 48 64 576 202.295 3 VERT 3X6FS Column Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 4 DIAGONAL 3X6FS VBrace Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 1 : DL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
6 M6 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 248 AT LINE B
67 of 136 67 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
10/4/2022
10:34:45 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-B.r3d ] Page 2 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL) (Continued)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 6 M6 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks
Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 1 M1 2-2X6FS 3.303 0 3 0.221 0 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-3 2 M2 2-2X6FS 2.873 5.418 3 0.24 5.418 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-3 3 M3 2-2X6FS 3.364 0 3 0.226 0 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-3 4 M4 2-2X6FS 3.054 5.188 3 0.229 5.188 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-3 5 M5 2-2X6FS 3.073 0 3 0.218 0 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 6 M6 2-2X6FS 2.915 5.056 3 0.219 5.056 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 7 M7 2-2X6FS 2.926 0 3 0.216 0 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 8 M8 2-2X6FS 2.876 5.002 3 0.217 5.002 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.9-3 9 M9 2-2X6FS 2.876 0 3 0.217 0 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.9-3 10 M10 2-2X6FS 2.926 5.021 3 0.216 5.021 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 11 M11 2-2X6FS 2.915 0 3 0.219 0 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 12 M12 2-2X6FS 3.073 5.111 3 0.218 5.111 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 13 M13 2-2X6FS 3.054 0 3 0.229 0 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-3 14 M14 2-2X6FS 3.364 5.289 3 0.226 5.289 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-3 15 M15 2-2X6FS 2.873 0 3 0.24 0 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-3 16 M16 2-2X6FS 3.303 5.658 3 0.221 5.658 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-3 17 M17 2-2X12FS 0.43 5 3 0.092 0 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-3 18 M18 2-2X12FS 0.332 0 3 0.051 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-3 19 M19 2-2X12FS 0.081 5.521 3 0.013 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 20 M20 2-2X12FS 0.091 4.062 3 0.014 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 21 M21 2-2X12FS 0.086 5 3 0.011 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 22 M22 2-2X12FS 0.091 5.938 3 0.014 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 23 M23 2-2X12FS 0.081 4.479 3 0.013 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 24 M24 2-2X12FS 0.332 10 3 0.051 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-3 25 M25 2-2X12FS 0.43 0 3 0.092 5 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-3 26 M26 3X6FS 0.214 0 3 0.038 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-1 27 M27 3X6FS 0.055 0 3 0.007 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.9-1 28 M28 3X6FS 0.024 8.907 3 0.001 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.9-1 29 M29 3X6FS 0.019 10.111 3 0 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.9-1 30 M30 3X6FS 0.019 10.111 3 0 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.9-1 31 M31 3X6FS 0.024 8.907 3 0.001 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.9-1 32 M32 3X6FS 0.055 0 3 0.007 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.9-1 33 M33 3X6FS 0.214 0 3 0.038 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-1 34 M34 3X6FS 0.325 0 3 0.042 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-3 35 M35 3X6FS 0.196 0 3 0.034 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 36 M36 3X6FS 0.108 0 3 0.009 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.6.3 37 M37 3X6FS 0.075 9.304 3 0.013 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 38 M38 3X6FS 0.082 0 3 0.01 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 39 M39 3X6FS 0.049 10.875 3 0.01 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 40 M40 3X6FS 0.03 11.413 3 0.009 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.9-3 41 M41 3X6FS 0.03 11.413 3 0.009 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.9-3 EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 248 AT LINE B
68 of 136 68 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
10/4/2022
10:34:45 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-B.r3d ] Page 3 Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks (Continued) Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 42 M42 3X6FS 0.049 10.875 3 0.01 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 43 M43 3X6FS 0.082 0 3 0.01 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 44 M44 3X6FS 0.075 9.304 3 0.013 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 45 M45 3X6FS 0.108 0 3 0.009 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.6.3 46 M46 3X6FS 0.196 0 3 0.034 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 47 M47 3X6FS 0.325 0 3 0.042 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-3 EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 248 AT LINE B
69 of 136 69 of 136
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
BLDG 2481
Oct 04, 2022
TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-C.r3d

EXISTING CONDITION
(WITH KICKER BRACE ON ONE END)
APPLIES TO BLDG 248-LINE C
70 of 136 70 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
10/4/2022
10:31:59 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-C.r3d ] Page 1 Wood Properties
Label Type Database Species Grade Cm Ci EmodNu Therm. Coeff. [1e⁵°F⁻¹] Density [k/ft³] 1 DF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Douglas Fir-Larch No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 2 SP Solid Sawn Visually Graded Southern Pine No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 3 HF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Hem-Fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 4 SPF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Spruce-Pine-fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 5 24F-1.8E DF Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 6 24F-1.8E DF Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 7 24F-1.8E SP Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 8 24F-1.8E SP Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 9 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM SCL Boise Cascade 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 10 1.35E LSL_SolidStart SCL Louisiana Pacific 1.35E LSL_SolidStart na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 11 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL SCL Roseburg Forest Products 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 12 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL SCL TrusJoist 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 13 LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F Custom N/A LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 14 LVL_Microlam_1.9E_2600F Custom N/A LVL_Microllam_1.9E_2600F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 15 PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F Custom N/A PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 16 LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F Custom N/A LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 17 Redwood Solid Sawn Visually Graded Redwood No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 Wood Section Sets
Label Shape Type Design List Material Design RuleArea [in²]Iyy [in⁴]Izz [in⁴] J [in⁴] 1 TOP CHORD 2-2X6FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 24 32 72 75.125 2 BOTT CHORD 2-2X12FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 48 64 576 202.295 3 VERT 3X6FS Column Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 4 DIAGONAL 3X6FS VBrace Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 1 : DL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
6 M6 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 248 AT LINE C
71 of 136 71 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
10/4/2022
10:31:59 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-C.r3d ] Page 2 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL) (Continued)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 6 M6 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks
Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 1 M1 2-2X6FS 0.542 0 3 0.223 0 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-1 2 M2 2-2X6FS 0.677 0 3 0.284 0 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-1 3 M3 2-2X6FS 1.367 0 3 0.202 0 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-3 4 M4 2-2X6FS 1.333 0 3 0.203 5.188 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-3 5 M5 2-2X6FS 1.956 0 3 0.217 0 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 6 M6 2-2X6FS 1.834 5.056 3 0.212 5.056 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 7 M7 2-2X6FS 2.138 0 3 0.217 0 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 8 M8 2-2X6FS 2.085 5.002 3 0.213 5.002 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.9-3 9 M9 2-2X6FS 2.26 0 3 0.217 0 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.9-3 10 M10 2-2X6FS 2.289 5.021 3 0.214 5.021 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 11 M11 2-2X6FS 2.393 0 3 0.219 0 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 12 M12 2-2X6FS 2.518 5.111 3 0.216 5.111 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 13 M13 2-2X6FS 2.582 0 3 0.227 0 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-3 14 M14 2-2X6FS 2.842 5.289 3 0.223 5.289 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-3 15 M15 2-2X6FS 2.473 0 3 0.236 0 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-3 16 M16 2-2X6FS 2.848 5.658 3 0.22 5.658 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-3 17 M17 2-2X12FS 1.574 4.375 3 2.049 4.375 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-3 18 M18 2-2X12FS 0.681 10 3 0.042 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.6.3 19 M19 2-2X12FS 0.125 10 3 0.016 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.6.3 20 M20 2-2X12FS 0.086 6.042 3 0.014 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 21 M21 2-2X12FS 0.13 5.313 3 0.012 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 22 M22 2-2X12FS 0.16 6.25 3 0.014 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 23 M23 2-2X12FS 0.167 4.688 3 0.012 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 24 M24 2-2X12FS 0.404 10 3 0.049 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 25 M25 2-2X12FS 0.431 0 3 0.089 5 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-1 26 M26 3X6FS 0.794 0 3 0.371 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-3 27 M27 3X6FS 0.099 0 3 0.018 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.9-3 28 M28 3X6FS 0.033 0 3 0.004 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.6.3 29 M29 3X6FS 0.02 0 3 0.002 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.6.3 30 M30 3X6FS 0.015 10.111 3 0.002 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.9-1 31 M31 3X6FS 0.018 8.907 3 0.002 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.9-1 32 M32 3X6FS 0.047 0 3 0.008 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.9-1 33 M33 3X6FS 0.199 0 3 0.041 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-1 34 M34 3X6FS 3.267 6.888 3 0.022 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-3 35 M35 3X6FS 0.534 6.888 3 0.023 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 36 M36 3X6FS 0.837 0 3 0.017 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.6.3 37 M37 3X6FS 0.217 9.304 3 0.008 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 38 M38 3X6FS 0.544 0 3 0.01 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 39 M39 3X6FS 0.127 10.875 3 0.007 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 40 M40 3X6FS 0.323 0 3 0.01 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.6.3 41 M41 3X6FS 0.079 11.413 3 0.007 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.9-1 EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 248 AT LINE C
72 of 136 72 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
10/4/2022
10:31:59 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-BLDG 248-C.r3d ] Page 3 Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks (Continued) Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 42 M42 3X6FS 0.14 0 3 0.01 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 43 M43 3X6FS 0.041 3.172 3 0.008 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 44 M44 3X6FS 0.047 9.304 3 0.013 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-3 45 M45 3X6FS 0.038 0 3 0.008 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.6.3 46 M46 3X6FS 0.166 0 3 0.031 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 47 M47 3X6FS 0.286 0 3 0.039 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-3 EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 248 AT LINE C
73 of 136 73 of 136
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
EXISTING1
Sep 09, 2022
TRUSS ANALYSIS-2.r3d

EXISTING CONDITION
(WITH KICKER BRACE ON BOTH ENDS)
APPLIES TO BLDG 249-LINE B & C
74 of 136 74 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
9/9/2022
1:34:07 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-2.r3d ] Page 1
Wood Properties
Label Type Database Species Grade Cm Ci EmodNu Therm. Coeff. [1e⁵°F⁻¹] Density [k/ft³] 1 DF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Douglas Fir-Larch No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 2 SP Solid Sawn Visually Graded Southern Pine No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 3 HF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Hem-Fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 4 SPF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Spruce-Pine-fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 5 24F-1.8E DF Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 6 24F-1.8E DF Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 7 24F-1.8E SP Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 8 24F-1.8E SP Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 9 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM SCL Boise Cascade 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 10 1.35E LSL_SolidStart SCL Louisiana Pacific 1.35E LSL_SolidStart na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 11 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL SCL Roseburg Forest Products 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 12 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL SCL TrusJoist 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 13 LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F Custom N/A LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 14 LVL_Microlam_1.9E_2600F Custom N/A LVL_Microllam_1.9E_2600F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 15 PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F Custom N/A PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 16 LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F Custom N/A LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 17 Redwood Solid Sawn Visually Graded Redwood No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 Wood Section Sets
Label Shape Type Design List Material Design RuleArea [in²]Iyy [in⁴]Izz [in⁴] J [in⁴] 1 TOP CHORD 2-2X6FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 24 32 72 75.125 2 BOTT CHORD 2-2X12FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 48 64 576 202.295 3 VERT 3X6FS Column Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 4 DIAGONAL 3X6FS VBrace Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 1 : DL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
6 M6 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 249
75 of 136 75 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
9/9/2022
1:34:07 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-2.r3d ] Page 2
Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL) (Continued)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 6 M6 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.4 -0.4 0 %100
Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks
Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 1 M1 2-2X6FS 0.478 0 3 0.221 0 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-1 2 M2 2-2X6FS 0.598 0 3 0.276 0 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-1 3 M3 2-2X6FS 1.207 0 3 0.201 0 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-3 4 M4 2-2X6FS 1.178 0 3 0.203 5.188 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-3 5 M5 2-2X6FS 1.649 0 3 0.215 0 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 6 M6 2-2X6FS 1.55 5.056 3 0.212 5.056 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 7 M7 2-2X6FS 1.714 0 3 0.215 0 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 8 M8 2-2X6FS 1.679 5.002 3 0.214 5.002 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.9-3 9 M9 2-2X6FS 1.679 0 3 0.214 0 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.9-3 10 M10 2-2X6FS 1.714 5.021 3 0.215 5.021 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 11 M11 2-2X6FS 1.55 0 3 0.212 0 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 12 M12 2-2X6FS 1.649 5.111 3 0.215 5.111 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 13 M13 2-2X6FS 1.178 5.188 3 0.203 0 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-3 14 M14 2-2X6FS 1.207 5.289 3 0.201 5.289 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-3 15 M15 2-2X6FS 0.598 5.418 3 0.276 5.418 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-1 16 M16 2-2X6FS 0.478 5.658 3 0.221 5.658 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-1 17 M17 2-2X12FS 1.228 4.375 3 1.861 4.375 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-3 18 M18 2-2X12FS 0.388 10 3 0.038 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.6.3 19 M19 2-2X12FS 0.119 2.813 3 0.016 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 20 M20 2-2X12FS 0.159 5.625 3 0.013 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 21 M21 2-2X12FS 0.177 5 3 0.011 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 22 M22 2-2X12FS 0.159 4.375 3 0.013 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 23 M23 2-2X12FS 0.119 7.188 3 0.016 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 24 M24 2-2X12FS 0.388 10 3 0.038 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.6.3 25 M25 2-2X12FS 1.228 0.625 3 1.861 0.625 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-3 26 M26 3X6FS 0.719 0 3 0.336 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-3 27 M27 3X6FS 0.086 0 3 0.015 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.9-3 28 M28 3X6FS 0.053 0 3 0.002 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.6.3 29 M29 3X6FS 0.053 0 3 0.001 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.6.3 30 M30 3X6FS 0.053 0 3 0.001 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.6.3 31 M31 3X6FS 0.053 0 3 0.002 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.6.3 32 M32 3X6FS 0.086 0 3 0.015 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.9-3 33 M33 3X6FS 0.719 0 3 0.336 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-3 34 M34 3X6FS 2.65 6.888 3 0.02 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-3 35 M35 3X6FS 0.476 6.888 3 0.022 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 36 M36 3X6FS 0.706 0 3 0.016 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.6.3 37 M37 3X6FS 0.174 9.304 3 0.008 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 38 M38 3X6FS 0.372 0 3 0.009 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 39 M39 3X6FS 0.077 10.875 3 0.008 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 40 M40 3X6FS 0.078 0 3 0.008 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.6.3 41 M41 3X6FS 0.078 0 3 0.008 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.6.3 EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 249
76 of 136 76 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
9/9/2022
1:34:07 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-2.r3d ] Page 3
Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks (Continued) Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 42 M42 3X6FS 0.077 10.875 3 0.008 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 43 M43 3X6FS 0.372 0 3 0.009 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 44 M44 3X6FS 0.174 9.304 3 0.008 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 45 M45 3X6FS 0.706 0 3 0.016 9.304 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.6.3 46 M46 3X6FS 0.476 6.888 3 0.022 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 47 M47 3X6FS 2.65 6.888 3 0.02 6.888 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-3 EXISTING CONDITION-BLDG 249
77 of 136 77 of 136
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
PROPOSED1
Sep 09, 2022
TRUSS ANALYSIS-3.r3d

PROPOSED CONDITION
78 of 136 78 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
9/9/2022
1:37:38 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-3.r3d ] Page 1
Wood Properties
Label Type Database Species Grade Cm Ci EmodNu Therm. Coeff. [1e⁵°F⁻¹] Density [k/ft³] 1 DF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Douglas Fir-Larch No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 2 SP Solid Sawn Visually Graded Southern Pine No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 3 HF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Hem-Fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 4 SPF Solid Sawn Visually Graded Spruce-Pine-fir No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 5 24F-1.8E DF Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 6 24F-1.8E DF Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_DF_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 7 24F-1.8E SP Balanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_BAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 8 24F-1.8E SP Unbalanced Glulam NDS Table 5A 24F-1.8E_SP_UNBAL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 9 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM SCL Boise Cascade 1.3E-1600F_VERSALAM na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 10 1.35E LSL_SolidStart SCL Louisiana Pacific 1.35E LSL_SolidStart na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 11 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL SCL Roseburg Forest Products 1.3E_RIGIDLAM LVL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 12 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL SCL TrusJoist 2.0E_DF Parallam PSL na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 13 LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F Custom N/A LVL_PRL_1.5E_2250F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 14 LVL_Microlam_1.9E_2600F Custom N/A LVL_Microllam_1.9E_2600F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 15 PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F Custom N/A PSL_Parallam_2.0E_2900F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 16 LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F Custom N/A LSL_TimberStrand_1.55E_2325F na 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 17 Redwood Solid Sawn Visually Graded Redwood No.1 1 0.3 0.3 0.035 Wood Section Sets
Label Shape Type Design List Material Design RuleArea [in²]Iyy [in⁴]Izz [in⁴] J [in⁴] 1 TOP CHORD 2-2X6FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 24 32 72 75.125 2 BOTT CHORD 2-2X12FS Beam Rectangular Double Redwood Typical 48 64 576 202.295 3 VERT 3X6FS Column Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 4 DIAGONAL 3X6FS VBrace Rectangular Redwood Typical 18 13.5 54 37.079 5 NEW 2-2X12FS VBrace Rectangular Redwood Typical 48 64 576 202.295 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 1 : DL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
5 M5 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
6 M6 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.2 -0.2 0 %100
Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
2 M2 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
3 M3 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
4 M4 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100

PROPOSED CONDITION
79 of 136 79 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
9/9/2022
1:37:38 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-3.r3d ] Page 2
Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : LL) (Continued)
Member Label Direction Start Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft] Start Location [(ft, %)] End Location [(ft, %)] 5 M5 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
6 M6 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
7 M7 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
8 M8 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
9 M9 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
10 M10 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
11 M11 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
12 M12 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
13 M13 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
14 M14 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
15 M15 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
16 M16 Y -0.28 -0.28 0 %100
Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks
Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 1 M1 2-2X6FS 0.237 5.658 3 0.204 5.658 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-1 2 M2 2-2X6FS 0.255 5.418 3 0.211 5.418 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-1 3 M3 2-2X6FS 0.451 5.289 3 0.204 5.289 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-1 4 M4 2-2X6FS 0.442 0 3 0.213 0 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-1 5 M5 2-2X6FS 0.414 0 3 0.224 0 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 6 M6 2-2X6FS 0.31 5.056 3 0.204 5.056 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 7 M7 2-2X6FS 0.482 0 3 0.214 0 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 8 M8 2-2X6FS 0.461 0 3 0.211 5.002 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.6.3 9 M9 2-2X6FS 0.463 5.002 3 0.211 0 y 3 0.479 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7440.9980.4843.6.3 10 M10 2-2X6FS 0.483 5.021 3 0.214 5.021 y 3 0.478 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7530.9980.4833.9-3 11 M11 2-2X6FS 0.313 0 3 0.204 0 y 3 0.476 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.77 0.9980.4813.9-3 12 M12 2-2X6FS 0.416 5.111 3 0.224 5.111 y 3 0.473 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.7960.9970.4783.9-3 13 M13 2-2X6FS 0.433 5.188 3 0.213 5.188 y 3 0.468 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8320.9970.4733.9-1 14 M14 2-2X6FS 0.443 0 3 0.204 0 y 3 0.462 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.8790.9970.4673.9-1 15 M15 2-2X6FS 0.252 0 3 0.211 0 y 3 0.454 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.9380.9970.4593.9-3 16 M16 2-2X6FS 0.236 0 3 0.204 0 y 3 0.439 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 5.0460.9970.4433.9-3 17 M17 2-2X12FS 0.108 0.156 3 0.011 5 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-1 18 M18 2-2X12FS 0.133 10 3 0.036 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-3 19 M19 2-2X12FS 0.232 10 3 0.031 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.6.3 20 M20 2-2X12FS 0.092 6.354 3 0.014 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 21 M21 2-2X12FS 0.134 5 3 0.011 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 22 M22 2-2X12FS 0.094 3.75 3 0.014 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-1 23 M23 2-2X12FS 0.225 10 3 0.031 10 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.6.3 24 M24 2-2X12FS 0.141 0 3 0.035 0 y 3 0.197 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.4870.9920.2193.9-3 25 M25 2-2X12FS 0.083 5 3 0.012 0 y 3 0.448 0.45 0.772 0.775 0.16 6.7080.9960.4973.9-1 26 M26 3X6FS 0.091 0 3 0.046 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-3 27 M27 3X6FS 0.171 0 3 0.006 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.6.3 28 M28 3X6FS 0.185 0 3 0.011 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.6.3 29 M29 3X6FS 0.201 0 3 0.002 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.6.3 30 M30 3X6FS 0.2 0 3 0.002 10.111 y 3 0.193 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 8.994 0.99 0.1953.6.3 31 M31 3X6FS 0.184 0 3 0.011 8.907 y 3 0.244 0.585 0.999 1.008 0.16 8.4410.9910.2473.6.3 32 M32 3X6FS 0.169 0 3 0.006 6.462 y 3 0.429 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.19 0.9940.4333.6.3 33 M33 3X6FS 0.093 0 3 0.047 2.649 y 3 0.909 0.585 1.005 1.008 0.16 4.6030.9980.9183.9-3 34 M34 3X6FS 0.163 4.879 3 0.008 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 35 M35 3X6FS 0.281 0 3 0.009 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.6.3 36 M37 3X6FS 0.405 0 3 0.01 0 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 37 M38 3X6FS 0.89 0 3 0.011 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 38 M39 3X6FS 0.153 0 3 0.007 0 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 39 M40 3X6FS 0.179 0 3 0.007 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.6.3 40 M41 3X6FS 0.168 0 3 0.007 11.413 y 3 0.153 0.585 0.996 1.008 0.16 9.5550.9890.1543.6.3

PROPOSED CONDITION
80 of 136 80 of 136
Company
Designer
Job Number
Model Name
:
:
:
:
<Licensed Company>
YosimarRamos
Checked By : __________
9/9/2022
1:37:38 AM
RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS ANALYSIS-3.r3d ] Page 3
Envelope AWC NDS-18: ASD Member Wood Code Checks (Continued) Member Shape Code CheckLoc[ft]LC Shear CheckLoc[ft]Dir LC Fc' [ksi] Ft' [ksi] Fb1' [ksi]Fb2' [ksi]Fv' [ksi] RB CL CP Eqn 41 M42 3X6FS 0.15 0 3 0.007 0 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.9-1 42 M43 3X6FS 0.878 0 3 0.011 10.875 y 3 0.168 0.585 0.997 1.008 0.16 9.3270.9890.1693.6.3 43 M44 3X6FS 0.401 0 3 0.01 0 y 3 0.225 0.585 0.998 1.008 0.16 8.6270.9910.2283.9-1 44 M46 3X6FS 0.28 0 3 0.008 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.6.3 45 M47 3X6FS 0.162 4.663 3 0.007 0 y 3 0.386 0.585 1.001 1.008 0.16 7.4230.994 0.39 3.9-1 46 M48 2-2X12FS 0.647 0 3 0.008 9.304 y 3 0.223 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.1510.9920.2483.6.3 47 M49 2-2X12FS 0.641 0 3 0.007 9.304 y 3 0.223 0.45 0.769 0.775 0.16 9.1510.9920.2483.6.3

PROPOSED CONDITION
81 of 136 81 of 136

APPENDIX V
PHOTOS
82 of 136 82 of 136
BUILDING 248 – DETERIORATION AT LOWER PORTION OF STUD WALL 83 of 136 83 of 136
BUILDING 248 – WALL CLADDING FAILURE
84 of 136 84 of 136
BUILDING 248 – HEADER TYPE STRUCTURE
85 of 136 85 of 136
BUILDING 248 – ROOF CONNECTION DISPLACEMENT
86 of 136 86 of 136
BUILDING 248 – BOWSTRING TRUSS
87 of 136 87 of 136
BUILDING 248 – BOWSTRING TRUSS EASTERLY CONNECTION
88 of 136 88 of 136
BUILDING 248 – BOWSTRING TRUSS WESTERLY CONNECTION 1
89 of 136 89 of 136
BUILDING 248 – BOWSTRING TRUSS WESTERLY CONNECTION 2
90 of 136 90 of 136
BUILDING 249 – BOWSTRING TRUSS TYPICAL CONNECTION
91 of 136 91 of 136
BUILDING 249 – TRUSS CONNECTION FAILURE
92 of 136 92 of 136
BUILDING 249 – LET IN WOOD BRACES
93 of 136 93 of 136
BUILDING 249 – ROD DIAGONAL BRACES
94 of 136 94 of 136
Section III
95 of 136 95 of 136
Tryon
Tryon Company, LLC – 315 Meigs Road, Suite A-262, Santa Barbara, CA 93109 PH (805) 689-1520 – [email protected]

C O M P A N Y
May 20, 2023
Mr. Jeff Gorrell
Lenvik & Minor Architects
829 De La Vina, Suite 205
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Re: City of Santa Barbara - General Western Aero Hanger Restoration Feasibility Study Restoration / Relocation Cost Analysis
Dear Mr. Gorrell:

Tryon has prepared comparative cost estimates for four different scenarios related to the General Western Aero Hangers 248 &249 located at the Santa Barbara Airport. Our estimates are based upon the findings and recommendations of Applied Earthworks, Inc., in their draft report dated February 2023, and of Praxis Engineering, in their report dated October 19, 2022.

The scenarios we have priced are as follows:

Document & Demo
 Photo-Document & As-Built-Plan-Document Buildings
 Obtain Demolition Permits
 Demolish Structures
 Demolish Related Paving, Retain Walls & Foundations
 Remove & Cap Utilities
 Clear & Rough-Grade Site
Repair / Restore in Place
 Fumigate Per Hydrex Pest Control
 Remove & Replace All Perimeter Termite-Infested and Dry-Rotted Framing  Revise Wood Sill Connection:
o Shore & Brace Building
o Excavate & Temporarily Remove Flood Control Berm at North & East Side of Building
o Construct New Poured Concrete Flood Control Wall Outboard of Existing Building, Restore Berm Outboard of New Flood Control Wall o Demolish Existing Concrete Retaining Wall Poured Against Existing Structures, Cut Out Sill Plates, and Related Damaged Framing
o Install Continuous Perimeter Concrete Stem Wall (To Eliminate Wood Contacting Grade)
o Reframe Plates and Walls as Required
96 of 136 96 of 136
Mr. Jeff Gorrell
Lenvik & Minor Architects

Real Estate, Construction and Development – Consulting & Management o Install Sill Plate Anchor Bolts
o Install French Drain System at All Retaining Wall Conditions  Structural Upgrade per Praxis Engineering Report
o Remove Roof, Repair Termite-Infested, Dry-Rotted & Damaged Framing, Install Rough Hardware and Repair/Restore Corrugated Metal Roof in Accordance with State Restoration Standards
o Reinforce Trusses & Install Connection Reinforcement Hardware per Structural Engineer
 Clean Concrete Floors, Epoxy Inject Cracks and Seal Concrete  Replace Concrete Only Where Necessary
 Repair Widows & Glazing
 Repair Exterior Sheet-Metal Siding, Replacing Only as Required  Repair Doors, Hanger Doors and Related Hardware
 Install New Electric Service/Breaker Panel, Distribution, Power Outlet Devices & Lighting Systems
 New Fire Sprinkler Systems
 Construction One New Unisex Toilet in Each Hanger
 Weed Treat, Patch and Asphalt-Overlay Existing Paved Area  Repair / Replace Chain Link Fencing as Required
 Install Code-Required Signage
Relocate, Repair & Restore
 Fumigate Per Hydrex Pest Control
 Photo-Document & As-Built-Plan-Document Buildings
 Dismantle & Relocate Building Components:
o Obtain Demolition Permits
o Dismantle Structures, Salvage Materials for Reuse Where Possible o Demolish Existing Paving, Retaining Walls & Foundations o Remove & Cap Utilities
o Clear & Rough-Grade Site
o Relocate Usable Building Components to New (Unnamed) Site  Rough-Grade New Site
 Construct New Street Access and Site Paving (8,400 SF), Including Site Lighting & Landscaping
 Install New Utility Services (Power, Sewer, Water & Communications)  Reconstruct Historic Buildings:
o New Foundations and Perimeter Stem Walls
o Concrete Floors & Sealer
o Replace All Termite-Infested and Dry-Rotted Materials o Perform All Structural Upgrades (outlined in previous scenario) o New Electrical & Lighting Systems
o New Fire Sprinkler System
o New Fire Alarm Systems
97 of 136 97 of 136
Mr. Jeff Gorrell
Lenvik & Minor Architects

Real Estate, Construction and Development – Consulting & Management Consolidate (Demo & Salvage Portions of Hanger 248, Restore Hanger 249) in Place  Photo-Document & As-Built-Plan-Document Hanger 248
 Demolish / Salvage Portions of Hanger 248 and Clear/Grade Site Area  Same Scope for Hanger 249 as in Repair / Restore in Place Cost Estimates:

Our estimated costs for the four scenarios are:

Document & Demo Hanger 248 & 249 $ 393,187
Repair & Restore in Place:

Hanger 248 $ 1,201.735
Hanger 249 $ 917,727
Relocate, Repair & Restore:

Hanger 248 $ 3,518,460
Hanger 249 $ 2,264,199

Consolidate (Restore Hanger 249 Only) in Place $ 1,685,669 Please feel fere to contact me if you have any questions or if you would like to meet and discuss our cost estimates in more detail.

Sincerely,
Trent W. Lyon
Attachment
98 of 136 98 of 136
Section IV
99 of 136 99 of 136
100 of 136 100 of 136
101 of 136 101 of 136
102 of 136 102 of 136
103 of 136 103 of 136
104 of 136 104 of 136
105 of 136 105 of 136
106 of 136 106 of 136
107 of 136 107 of 136
108 of 136 108 of 136
109 of 136 109 of 136
110 of 136 110 of 136
Section V
111 of 136 111 of 136
F:\BFE-DFE Letters\2023 BFE\SBA General Western Aero Hangars BLD2023-00684.docx Building & Safety Division
Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Determination
Please Reproduce in the Plans & Provide the Owner a Copy Date of Evaluation: March 21, 2023 Building Permit #: BLD2023-00684 Owner’s Applicant: Bradley Klinzing Structure Address: SBA General Western Aero Hangars E-Mail Address: [email protected] Assessor Parcel #: 073-450-003 Santa Barbara County Panel: 1362 of 1780 Map Panel #: 06083C1362H (to order map) FEMA NFIP Community: City of Santa Barbara Effective Date: 9/28/2018 Number•Panel•Suffix: 060335•1362•H (Insurance use) Map Revised: 6/03/2021 (LOMR 21-09-0037P) Building Use Non-Residential Existing Historical
FIRM Zone(s) SFHA AE SFHA AE Floodway Pre-FIRM (1928)
BFE Source: Digital FIRM Map FIS Profile Approximate A Zone STRUCTURE(S) shown represent the existing buildings to be elevated or floodproofed (as proposed by the applicant).

NON RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES may be required to elevate or floodproof the building to or above the DFE. Garages are required to be floodproofed. All new work shall comply with FEMA flood mitigation requirements to floodproof or elevate new or relocated mechanical, electrical & plumbing elements. Water resistant materials are required below the DFE.

FLOOD DESIGN ELEVATION is dependent on final usage proposed by the applicant. The BFE given above is the Design Flood Elevation (DFE) for these structures at their current location with no proposed usage change (i.e. Design Class 1 structure). For the other potential re-uses:
• Restore in place, use as hangar = Design Class 4 = 21.2’ DFE • Restore in place, use as museum = Design Class 3 = 20.2’ DFE • Restore in place, use as office = Design Class 2 = 20.2’ DFE • Relocation would require new BFE determination for proposed location.

FEMA
Flood Water Elevations
NAVD 1988 Datum
BLD 248 BFE = 19.2’
BLD 249 BFE = 19.2’
BFE = Base Flood Elevation
Flood Insurance Use
112 of 136 112 of 136
F:\BFE-DFE Letters\2023 BFE\SBA General Western Aero Hangars BLD2023-00684.docx BUILDING PERMITS are required before any new work, addition, or remodeling of structures occur in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code MC 22.24. Prior to issuing any development permits involving activities in a regulatory floodway such as this, the community must obtain a No Rise Certification stating the proposed development will not impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations, or floodway data widths. It is recommended that the Airport consult with a civil engineer with past experience with this floodplain.

Reference: NFIP regulations (44 CFR parts 59-78), S.B. City Municipal code §22.24.040, 22.24.180; ASCE 24-14, & ASCE 7-16 Chapter 5.
________________________________
Raina French, Project Engineer
(805) 564-5383 [email protected]
Public Works Department, Engineering Division
630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93102
113 of 136 113 of 136
Section VI
114 of 136 114 of 136
115 of 136 115 of 136
116 of 136 116 of 136
117 of 136 117 of 136
118 of 136 118 of 136
Section VII
119 of 136 119 of 136
120 of 136 120 of 136
121 of 136 121 of 136
122 of 136 122 of 136
123 of 136 123 of 136
Section VIII
124 of 136 124 of 136
#1 Bldg. 249 View from S.E. Job# 2204
e
125 of 136 125 of 136
#2 Bldg. 249 View from East Job# 2204
126 of 136 126 of 136
#3 Bldg. 249 View from N.E. Job# 2204
127 of 136 127 of 136
#4 Bldg. 249 View from S.W. job# 2204
128 of 136 128 of 136
#5 Bldg. 249 View from S.W. Corner Job# 2204
129 of 136 129 of 136
#6 Bldg. 249 View from West end of addion Job# 2204
130 of 136 130 of 136
#7 Bldg. 248 View from South Job# 2204
131 of 136 131 of 136
#8 Bldg. 248 View from S.W. Job# 2204
132 of 136 132 of 136
#9 Bldg. 248 View from West Job# 2204
133 of 136 133 of 136
#10 Bldg. 248 View from N.W. Job# 2204
134 of 136 134 of 136
#11 Bldg. 248 View from N.E. Job# 2204
135 of 136 135 of 136
#12 Bldg. 248 View from East Job# 2204
136 of 136 136 of 136

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONEMTNAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ADDENDUM TO:

FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONEMTNAL IMPACT REPORTON

THE PROPOSED AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
State Clearinghouse No. 2014061096
Final EIR Certified July 2017
FOR AIRPORT GENERAL WESTERN AERO HANGARS OPTION 4 PROJECT 500 JAMES FOWLER ROAD
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93117 (PLNXXX – XXXX)
November 28, 2023
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addendum is prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. An addendum to a previous EIR may be prepared if only minor changes or additions are necessary to make the prior document adequate for the current project and the changes involve no new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater than previously identified in the EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines provide that an EIR addendum need not be circulated for public review but is attached to the EIR. The decision-making body considers the addendum together with the certified EIR when making a decision on the current project.

PROJECT STATUS
The Airport General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project (Project) seeks to address decreased functionality of two hangars due to their age and the City of Santa Barbara (City) is considering two sub-options facilities management directions options. The Project was proceeded by consideration of three prior facilities management options, these are as follows, Option 1 full demolition of both Hangars; Option 2 restoration and rehabilitation of both Hangars at their currently location; and Option 3 relocation of both Hangars and rehabilitation in a new location.

The proposed project under consideration in the EIR addendum in Option 4, sub-option a; and (4) considered deconstruction of Hangar 248 and use of salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249 at the current location; or sub-option b deconstruction of Hangar 248 and use of salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249 at a new location on the Airport property outside of the flood plain. Options 1 through 3 were evaluated in the Airport Master Plan EIR (SCH No. 2014061096) therefore those three Options will not be evaluated in this EIR addendum. Only Option 4’s two sub-options are analyzed in this addendum below. As such, once all options have been analyzed for environmental impacts, the City can present all four Options to decision makers for selection.

Attachment C
Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

PRIOR ENVIRONEMTNAL DOCUMENTS
EIR (SCH No. 2014061096) was prepared in support of the City’s Santa Barbara Airport Master Plan and was certified in July of 2017. The EIR was a programmatic environmental assessment of the Airport Master Plan and provides a framework that will guide site-specific future Airport actions.

The Initial Study concluded that many impact categories would not be significantly impacted by the Airport Master Plan or had already been comprehensively discussed and mitigated in the City’s Final General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2009011031). However, potentially significant impacts could have occurred because of the Airport Master Plan for the following resource areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Water Quality and Flooding, Land Use and Planning, Public Utilities (Solid Waste Disposal only) (Cumulative), and Transportation/Traffic (Cumulative). Greenhouse Gases (GHG) analysis was not required previously and has been added to this addendum’s discussion.

BACKGROUND
The General Western Aero Corporation hangars are two airplane Hangars 248 and 249, that were constructed together to support the General Western Aero Corporation when the company relocated its airplane factory to the fledgling Santa Barbara‐Goleta Airport. The companion hangars, built alongside machine shops and an administration building, are located approximately 100 feet apart and are of the same design. None of the other original buildings remain. Hangars 248 and 249 were conceptualized at the same time and are nearly identical in workmanship, material, and design. While both hangars require repair and structural stabilization, Hangar 248 is visibly and structurally in worse condition.

CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Two Hangar buildings, Hangar 248 and Hangar 249 are in the northeast corner of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport (Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map). The prior EIR evaluated three potential project options of how to address the declining Hangars. Option 1 involved historical documentation of the existing Hangars before demolishing them both and paving the area for open field aircraft storage. Option 2 called for the restoration or rehabilitation of both Hangars in their current location and to continue to use the Hangars as airplane storage. Option 3 included relocation of both Hangars outside of the floodway, though still within the 100-year flood plain and then rehabilitate the Hangars for a new use which has yet to be determined. As noted above, Options 1 through 3 were previously analyzed under the prior EIR, therefore, the purpose of this EIR addendum focuses only on analyzing Option 4 which was not previously evaluated under CEQA.The two Hangar buildings 248 and 249 are located in the northeast corner of the Santa Barbara Airport (See Vicinity Map). These hangars were previously evaluated by Lenvik & Minor Architects in 2001. The Airport’s objective at that time was to evaluate two alternatives:

A) Restoration in the same location, which was housing small aircraft; or B) Adaptive reuse of the hangars as an aviation museum, visitors center, conference rooms, and children’s educational center relocating them to Hartley Place.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

A 2023, Lenvik & Minor Architects report “Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis” evaluated four options; this EIR addendum focuses only on Option 4, the one option not previously evaluated under CEQA. Option 4 assumes reconstruction of Hangar 248 and reuse the available salvaged historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249, variations in Option 4 are as follows.
• Option 4, sub-option a: would salvage parts of Hangar 248 to rehabilitate and restore in place Hangar 249, which would remain as airplane storage, and former footprint of Hangar 248 and its surrounding area would be paved for outdoor airplane storage. • Option 4, sub-option b: would salvage parts of Hangar 248 to rehabilitate Hangar 249 and relocate it to another site outside of the floodway for a new use yet to be determined and after relocation of Hangar 249 and removal of Hangar 248, the remaining area would be paved for outdoor airplane storage.

Hangars 248 and 249 were conceptualized at the same time and are nearly identical in workmanship, material, and design (Attachment 2 - LMA Architects, August 24, 2023), Both Hangars require repair and structural stabilization, however, Hangar 248 is visibly and structurally in worse condition. Hangar 248 is in poor condition and requires more substantial repair work and flood adaptation measures than are needed at Hangar 249. The damage to Hangar 248 is so advanced that most of its historic materials cannot be repaired, and instead would need to be removed and replaced. This damage negatively affects the Hangar’s integrity, particularly the aspects of workmanship, materials, and design. Depending on the extent of material replacement and the cumulative effects on integrity, a rehabilitated Hangar 248 could only marginally suggest its historic significance. With careful dismantling of Hangar 248 and reusing its salvageable historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249, the Project would result in one Hangar that more fully represents the historic significance of the two Hangars. The Project would jointly preserve the rare local building type and represent the Hangars’ period of historic significance.

CHANGES IN ENVIRONEMTNAL CIRCUMSTANCES
There have been no substantial changes in existing environmental conditions since certification of the EIR in 2017.

ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
This addendum analyzes the impacts of Option 4, sub-options a and b, for each resource area as compared to the existing baseline condition of the hangars. Staff determined that the CEQA impact areas most potentially affected by the Project include air quality/greenhouse gases, biological resources, geologic/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, cultural resources, historical resources, hydrology, water quality and flooding, and land use and planning, as discussed below.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas: The previous EIR identified one impact related to construction and/or demolition.

Impact AQ‐2: Construction of recommended Master Plan projects would result in emissions of pollutants due to grading, fumes, and vehicle exhaust. Diesel‐and gasoline‐ powered construction equipment emits particulate matter (MP10 and MP2.5), nitric oxide (NOx), and Reactive Organic Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Compound (ROC). For emissions from construction equipment to be considered a potentially significant environmental impact, combined emissions from all construction equipment would need to exceed 25 tons of any pollutant (except CO) within a 12‐month period. Therefore, this comparative analysis must occur as specific development projects are proposed, and the construction schedule and equipment inventories can be estimated. The City has also adopted CEQA thresholds related to the exposure of sensitive receptors, such as children, the elderly, or sick people, to substantial pollutant concentrations and the creation of nuisance odors inconsistent with Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations. The City’s CEQA Guidance criteria also state that substantial unmitigated nuisance dust during earthwork or construction operations should not occur. At the closest residence, located almost

0.2 mile away, pollutant concentrations or odors related to construction equipment or activities would not be significant. Dust, however, can migrate over considerable distances during windy conditions. The potential for dust generation during construction of Option 4’s two sub-options and b would be substantially similar. Under Sub-option a, limited earth moving activities would be necessary for disassembling Hangar 248, repaving of Hangar 248’s footprint with asphalt.

Under sub-option b, the relocation of the Hangar 248 would also require limited earthwork to grade the new building pad prior to construction.

Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance: There are no substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the Approved Project is undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to air quality or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Court of Appeal in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envtl Dev. V. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 515, 531 specifically found that the effect of GHG emissions on climate change does not constitute “new information” with respect to a project that was evaluated in a prior EIR. (see also Citizens against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal App 4th 788.

Result AQ‐2: Air quality and dust control is addressed in the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and is required by City Building Code provisions (Santa Barbara Municipal Code [SBMC] section 22.04.020 J112, Dust Control) and would be adhered to through all grading, hauling, and construction activities related to the Airport. The Airport Master Plan EIR, included programmatic measures intended to fully mitigate potential construction impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, construction or demolition‐related air quality impacts would be Class II, Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval Applicable to Project for dust control and other construction‐related emissions will be applied to the Project, as appropriate. APCD permits will be applied for and received prior to commencement of demolition or construction activities.

Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impact AQ-2.

AQ/mm‐1: As a condition of approval, all construction and/or building removal actions shall be required to estimate said Project’s combined emissions from all construction equipment to ensure Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

that the Project would not exceed 25 tons of any criteria pollutant except CO within a 12‐month period. Standard equipment exhaust mitigation measures recommended by the APCD for such projects shall be implemented, as appropriate.

AQ/mm-2: The following programmatic measure will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project. This measure will reduce potential air quality impacts (construction‐related) of the Project to a less than significant level.

Conclusion: Option 4 sub-options a and b, both involve the careful and strategic dismantling of Hangar 248 to reuse the building’s historic materials in adaptive reuse to rehabilitate Hangar 249. The Project has no potential to exacerbate air quality impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous EIR. The Project will comply with all mitigation measures for air quality impacts (construction-related) to a less than significant level.

Biological Resources: For the Option 4 sub-options a and b, the City’s Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) identifies habitats, important wildlife areas, key riparian bird habitat areas, and sensitive species points. The prior EIR evaluated and mapped the biological study area noting the location of special status species and their associated habitats. The Project is outside of the biological survey area. The two hangars are adjacent to Hydrophytic and Halophytic Vegetation Series/Upland Vegetation Series supported by the San Pedro Creek located to the east of Hangar 249. No activities are proposed under Option 4’s sub-options to directly impact this habitat series by crossing into this area or directly trimming native vegetation communities as part of the proposed Project’s construction activities.

The previous EIR identified one impact to adjacent creeks. The San Pedro and Las Vegas Creeks converge near the General Western Aero Hangars and the San Pedro Creek runs adjacent to location of the hangars.

Impact BIO‐3: A creek borders the north side development areas of the proposed Project. This creek contains ESHA (i.e., riparian scrub, wetlands, and open water) and is potential habitat for tidewater gobies and steelhead. Tidewater goby is a Federal endangered species and a CSC and is known to occur within the creek channel; steelhead of the southern California DPS is also a Federal endangered species and a CSC. It is not known to occur in Tecolotito or Carneros Creeks, but suitable spawning habitat is present upstream and regular monitoring of the creeks for steelhead has not occurred. Therefore, uncontrolled storm water runoff containing sedimentation or pollutants could have adverse effects on these protected fish within the creek waters.

Significant indirect impacts to San Pedro Creek as a result of construction activity related to proposed Project can be avoided through strict adherence to conditions of the project’s General Construction Permit, issued by the Central Coast RWQCB, as well as any conditions related to applicable LCP policies through the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process.

The Airport implements both the City of Santa Barbara’s Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and an airport‐specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), approved by Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

the Central Coast RWQCB. All future north side development will be subject to the provisions of the SWMP, SWPPP, and permit conditions from RWQCB, as applicable. These measures will ensure that all planned development will meet the local and regulatory standards for storm water control.

Result BIO‐3: There is no construction activity planned near San Pedro Creek as a result of the proposed Project. In addition, through implementation of the City’s and RWQCB’s existing drainage and water quality requirements, all future projects at the Airport must be designed to comply with the City’s requirements for storm water runoff and the City’s SWMP requirements.

The Airport has an existing SWPPP, dated September 2009, which also maintains compliance with the City’s SWMP. The Airport’s SWPPP, as well as project‐specific conditions of each project’s General Construction Permit and CDP, would be enforced during all construction projects. Therefore, indirect impacts to protected species within San Pedro Creek are Class III, Less than Significant since proposed Project implementation would not result in a “substantial effect on a protected plant or animal species listed or otherwise identified or protected as endangered, threatened, or rare” within the creek environs. No proposed Project impacts to San Pedro Creek are anticipated therefore RWQCB and USACE permits are not anticipated.

Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact BIO-3.

BIO/mm‐3: No construction shall occur during the avian breeding season (February 1‐ September 1) unless a survey from qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys finds that no bird breeding habitat exists within 300 feet of the disturbance area (500 feet for raptors) or can state with certainty that such habitat does not contain nesting birds.

Project personnel, including contractors working on the site, shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. Reductions in nest buffer distance may be approved by the City’s Community Development Department depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or other factors.

Conclusion: No substantial changes to the project, circumstances, or prior information have occurred that introduce a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect to Biological Resources.

Cultural Resources: The coastal area of Santa Barbara County, which includes the cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta, is located within the traditional territory of the Chumash Native Americans. Archaeological resources in the Santa Barbara/Goleta area include cave archaeology/rock art in the interior and middens (i.e., refuse piles) containing artifacts such as ornaments, tools, and shells along the coastal areas.

An influx of Spanish explorers and missionaries ushered in what is known as the Mission or Spanish Colonial/Mexican Period, ca. A.D. 1769‐1830. El Pueblo Santa Barbara was established in 1769, followed by the construction of the Santa Barbara Presidio and Mission Santa Barbara several years later. Several local Chumash villages were mostly abandoned when the native people converted to Christianity and moved to Mission Santa Barbara. A local chapel, San Miguel Chapel, was built just outside the Chumash village of S’axplil to provide additional Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023