Agenda packet, first session — Santa Barbara City Council, January 14, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Finance Department
SUBJECT: November 2024 Investment Report
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council accept the November 2024 Investment Report.

DISCUSSION:

The attached investment report includes Investment Activity, Interest Revenue, a Summary of Cash and Investments, and Investment Portfolio detail as of November 30, 2024.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. November 2024 Investment Report

2. November 2024 Clean Energy CCA Report

3. November 2024 PARS Section 115 Trust
PREPARED BY: Salvatore Parrilla, Treasury Analyst
SUBMITTED BY: Lyndsay Maas, Assistant Finance Director
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Agenda Item No. 17
File Code No. 260.02
ENDING BALANCE AS OF November 30, 2024
Yield to
Book Maturity
Description Value (365 days)
US Bank Checking Account $ 32,188,618 0.750%
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 45,564,903 4.477% Chandler Asset Management - Managed Portfolio 267,376,798 2.880% Total Cash and Investments $ 345,130,320
November 30, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Checking Account, LAIF & Managed Portfolio
Summary of Cash and Investments
CONFIDENTIAL | 2
City of Santa Barbara Managed | Account #11204 | As of November 30, 2024 Execution Time: 12/06/2024 04:27:25 PM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Portfolio Characteristics
Sector Allocation
Performance Review
Account Summary
Maturity Distribution
Top Issuers
Credit Quality
Total Rate of Return 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS Since Inception (08/01/24)
City of Santa Barbara Managed 0.43% 0.52% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Benchmark Return* 0.38% 0.18% -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Average Modified Duration 2.30
Average Coupon 2.62%
Average Purchase YTM 2.88%
Average Market YTM 4.33%
Average Quality AA+
Average Final Maturity 2.56
Average Life 2.36
Beg. Values as of
11/01/2024
End Values as of
11/30/2024
Market Value 261,626,986.92 262,783,983.28
Accrued Interest 1,672,108.24 1,638,095.66
Total Market Value 263,299,095.16 264,422,078.94
Income Earned 663,463.15 494,852.84
Cont/WD 0.00 0.00
Par 268,873,601.17 269,926,139.99
Book Value 266,703,875.93 267,376,798.41
Cost Value 266,305,749.03 266,938,133.16
United States 34.11%
Federal Home Loan Banks 20.00%
Farm Credit System 11.49%
FHLMC 9.48%
International Bank for Recon and Dev 4.43%
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corp 2.62%
U.S. Bancorp 2.60%
FNMA 1.48%
*Periods over 1 year are annualized.

Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index Secondary Benchmark:
*See Footnote
The credit quality is a weighted average calculation of the highest of S&P, Moody’s’ and Fitch CONFIDENTIAL | 4
City of Santa Barbara Managed | Account #11204 | As of November 30, 2024 Execution Time: 12/06/2024 04:27:25 PM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
AGENCY
3134GWA71

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 0.5
12/09/2024
3,000,000.00 09/09/2020

0.50%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

99.92 4.58%
2,997,614.40
7,166.67

1.14%
(2,385.60)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.02 0.02
3130AQDY6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.0
12/30/2024 3,000,000.00 12/30/20211.00%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

99.68 5.07%
2,990,488.14
12,583.33

1.14%
(9,511.86)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.08 0.08
3130AQDB6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

1.125 02/28/2025 3,000,000.00 12/28/20211.13%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

99.19 4.57%
2,975,744.55
14,343.75

1.13%
(24,255.45)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.25 0.23
3130AMRJ3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.6
03/28/2025 2,000,000.00 06/28/20210.60%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

98.70 4.68%
1,974,061.88
2,100.00

0.75%
(25,938.12)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.32 0.32
3133EMYN6 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 0.71 05/06/2025 2,000,000.00 05/06/20210.71% 2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

98.40 4.52%
1,967,985.06
986.11

0.75%
(32,014.94)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.43 0.42
3130AMMT6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

0.69 06/10/2025 2,000,000.00 06/10/20210.69%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

98.06 4.49%
1,961,156.24
6,555.00

0.75%
(38,843.76)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.53 0.51
3133ENHW3 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 1.17 06/23/2025 3,000,000.00 12/23/20211.17% 3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

98.20 4.46%
2,946,106.11
15,405.00

1.12%
(53,893.89)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.56 0.54
3136G4U92 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION 0.6 08/26/2025 4,000,000.00 08/26/20200.60% 4,000,000.00
4,000,000.00

97.23 4.48%
3,889,118.80
6,333.33

1.48%
(110,881.20)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.74 0.72
31422XBA9

FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL
MORTGAGE CORP 0.48
09/22/2025
3,000,000.00 03/02/2021

0.48%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

96.85 4.50%
2,905,589.55
2,760.00

1.11%
(94,410.45)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.81 0.79
3130ALAR5 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.5
11/25/2025 3,000,000.00 02/25/20210.50%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

96.42 4.23%
2,892,612.27
250.00

1.10%
(107,387.73)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.99 0.97
3134GXCS1

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 0.625
11/25/2025
3,000,000.00 11/25/2020

0.63%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

96.43 4.39%
2,892,787.86
312.50

1.10%
(107,212.14)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.99 0.96
3130AMFM9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.9
12/26/2025 3,000,000.00 05/26/20210.90%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

96.55 4.24%
2,896,580.46
375.00

1.10%
(103,419.54)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.07 1.04
3130AKSV9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

0.75 01/28/2026 3,000,000.00 01/28/20210.65%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.92 4.41%
2,877,635.76
7,687.50

1.10%
(122,364.24)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.16 1.13
3130AKPQ3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

0.58 01/28/2026 3,000,000.00 01/28/20210.58%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.75 4.39%
2,872,428.42
5,945.00

1.09%
(127,571.58)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.16 1.13
3130AKQA7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.7
01/28/2026 3,000,000.00 01/28/20210.61%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.87 4.41%
2,875,965.75
7,175.00

1.09%
(124,034.25)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.16 1.13
3133ENJ35 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 3.32 02/25/2026 3,000,000.00 08/30/20223.47% 2,985,331.95
2,994,811.54

98.79 4.34%
2,963,659.32
26,560.00

1.13%
(31,152.22)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3130AUU36 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

4.125 03/13/2026 2,000,000.00 03/23/20234.14%
1,999,140.00
1,999,630.18

99.73 4.34%
1,994,504.26
17,875.00

0.76%
(5,125.92)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.28 1.22
3130ALGY4 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.0
03/16/2026 2,000,000.00 03/16/20210.80%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

95.78 4.40%
1,915,674.44
4,166.67

0.73%
(84,325.56)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.29 1.25
3130ARKG5 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 3.0
04/21/2026 2,000,000.00 04/21/20223.00%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

98.22 4.34%
1,964,340.94
6,666.67

0.75%
(35,659.06)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.39 1.33
31422X2U5

FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL
MORTGAGE CORP 3.625
05/15/2026
2,000,000.00 05/15/2023

3.62%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

99.11 4.26%
1,982,124.72
3,222.22

0.75%
(17,875.28)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.45 1.40
3130AMDY5 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.0
05/20/2026 2,000,000.00 05/20/20211.00%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

95.20 4.42%
1,903,914.82
611.11

0.72%
(96,085.18)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.47 1.43
3133ENXS4

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT
BANKS FUNDING CORP 3.375
05/26/2026
3,000,000.00 05/26/2022

3.38%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

98.68 4.30%
2,960,545.59
1,406.25

1.13%
(39,454.41)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.48 1.43
3130AMMZ2 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.0
06/10/2026 2,000,000.00 06/10/20211.00%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

95.05 4.40%
1,900,910.42
9,500.00

0.72%
(99,089.58)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.53 1.47
3133EMH21 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 0.9 06/15/2026 2,000,000.00 06/15/20210.90% 2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

94.95 4.33%
1,898,992.50
8,300.00

0.72%
(101,007.50)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.54 1.49
3133ENHV5 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 1.39 06/22/2026 3,000,000.00 12/22/20211.39% 3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.62 4.33%
2,868,690.54
18,417.50

1.09%
(131,309.46)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.56 1.50
3133EM4S8 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 0.87 09/08/2026 2,000,000.00 09/08/20210.87% 2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

94.02 4.43%
1,880,375.22
4,011.67

0.72%
(119,624.78)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.77 1.72
3130ANXS4 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.9
09/28/2026 2,000,000.00 09/28/20210.90%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

94.07 4.32%
1,881,492.76
3,150.00

0.72%
(118,507.24)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.83 1.77
3133ENT67 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 4.25 10/19/2026 3,000,000.00 10/19/20224.26% 2,998,500.00
2,999,294.66

99.96 4.27%
2,998,890.12
14,875.00

1.14%
(404.54)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.88 1.78
3130APHA6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

1.25 10/28/2026 2,000,000.00 10/28/20211.12%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

94.42 4.33%
1,888,314.24
2,291.67

0.72%
(111,685.76)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.91 1.85
3130AXU63 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

4.625 11/17/2026 2,000,000.00 11/29/20234.54%
2,004,900.00
2,003,236.53
101.01

4.08%
2,020,114.28
3,597.22

0.77%
16,877.75
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.96 1.85
3133ENLZ1 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 1.78 01/26/2027 3,000,000.00 01/27/20221.78% 3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

94.91 4.28%
2,847,307.83
18,541.67

1.08%
(152,692.17)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.16 2.06
3130AQMX8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

2.25 01/26/2027 3,000,000.00 01/26/20221.79%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.87 4.28%
2,876,145.72
23,437.50

1.09%
(123,854.28)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.16 2.05
3133ENPB0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 2.18 02/16/2027 3,000,000.00 02/16/20222.18% 3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.59 4.30%
2,867,663.55
19,075.00

1.09%
(132,336.45)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3130ARCB5 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

2.375 03/29/2027 3,000,000.00 03/29/20222.37%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

95.88 4.26%
2,876,261.40
12,270.83

1.09%
(123,738.60)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.33 2.22
3133EPEE1 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 4.0 03/29/2027 2,000,000.00 03/29/20234.00% 2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

99.60 4.18%
1,991,910.28
13,777.78

0.76%
(8,089.72)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.33 2.18
31422X2W1

FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL
MORTGAGE CORP 4.1
05/19/2027
2,000,000.00 05/19/2023

4.10%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

99.37 4.37%
1,987,339.92
2,733.33

0.76%
(12,660.08)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.47 2.31
3134GXVN1

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 3.5
06/23/2027
3,000,000.00 06/23/2022

3.50%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

97.98 4.34%
2,939,510.55
46,083.33

1.12%
(60,489.45)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.56 2.38
3134GYPF3

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 4.75
07/12/2027
2,000,000.00 04/12/2023

4.75%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

99.81 4.83%
1,996,161.90
36,680.56

0.76%
(3,838.10)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.61 2.38
3130AWWN6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 4.5
09/10/2027 2,000,000.00 08/24/20234.51%
1,999,120.00
1,999,396.86
100.95

4.13%
2,018,934.20
20,250.00

0.77%
19,537.34
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.78 2.56
3134GX3H5

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 4.75
09/29/2027
3,000,000.00 09/29/2022

4.75%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

99.62 4.89%
2,988,484.11
24,541.67

1.14%
(11,515.89)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.83 2.59
3133EPJ30 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FUNDING CORP 5.38 12/06/2027 2,000,000.00 12/06/20235.38% 2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
100.01

4.51%
2,000,167.86
52,305.56

0.76%
167.86
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.02 0.01
3130AWC24 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 4.0
06/09/2028 2,000,000.00 06/26/20234.07%
1,993,600.00
1,995,452.82

99.43 4.17%
1,988,665.04
38,222.22

0.76%
(6,787.78)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.53 3.19
3134H1KW2

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 5.55
12/04/2028
2,000,000.00 12/04/2023

5.55%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
100.00

4.94%
2,000,052.74
54,575.00

0.76%

52.74 Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.01 0.01
3130ATHX8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

4.125 09/14/2029 3,000,000.00 10/17/20243.93%
3,025,380.00
3,024,756.83

99.99 4.13%
2,999,839.86
26,468.75

1.14%
(24,916.97)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.79 4.26
Total Agency 112,000,000.00 2.14%
112,005,971.95
112,016,579.42

97.64 4.41%
109,316,864.38
603,592.36

41.60%
(2,699,715.04)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.63 1.42

AGENCY CMBS
3137FLN91 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505
03/25/2029 2,570,000.00 09/20/20243.80%
2,537,272.66
2,538,627.87

96.37 4.43%
2,476,802.55
7,506.54

0.94%
(61,825.32)
Aaa/AAA
AA+

4.31 3.82
3137FMCR1 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982
05/25/2029 2,500,000.00 09/19/20243.82%
2,411,914.06
2,415,479.44

94.25 4.44%
2,356,359.75
6,212.50

0.90%
(59,119.69)
Aaa/AA+
AAA

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3137FPHK4 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425
08/25/2029 2,100,000.00 10/01/20243.83%
1,970,718.74
1,974,974.31

91.56 4.45%
1,922,721.78
4,243.75

0.73%
(52,252.53)
Aaa/AA+
AAA

4.73 4.28
3137H9D71 FHMS K-750 A2 3.0 09/25/2029 2,500,000.00 11/15/2024

4.62%
2,336,718.75
2,337,747.44

94.05 4.48%
2,351,369.75
6,250.00

0.89%
13,622.31
Aaa/AA+
AAA

4.82 4.04
Total Agency
CMBS 9,670,000.00 4.02%
9,256,624.21
9,266,829.06

94.21 4.45%
9,107,253.83
24,212.79

3.47%
(159,575.24)
Aaa/AA+
AAA

4.58 4.01
CASH
CCYUSD Receivable 156,308.80 --

0.00%
156,308.80
156,308.80

1.00 0.00%
156,308.80

0.00 0.06%

0.00 Aaa/AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00
Total Cash 156,308.80 0.00%
156,308.80
156,308.80

1.00 0.00%
156,308.80

0.00 0.06%

0.00 Aaa/AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00

CORPORATE
037833EB2 APPLE INC 0.7 02/08/2026 3,000,000.00 02/17/2021

0.71%
2,999,250.00
2,999,820.86

95.78 4.40%
2,873,347.98
6,591.67

1.09%
(126,472.88)
Aaa/AA+
NA

1.19 1.15
74153WCU1 PRICOA GLOBAL FUNDING I 4.4
08/27/2027 3,500,000.00 08/20/20244.41%
3,499,230.00
3,499,297.51

99.82 4.47%
3,493,795.48
40,211.11

1.33%
(5,502.03)
Aa3/AAAA2.74

2.52 66815L2T5

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
GLOBAL FUNDING 4.11
09/12/2027
2,440,000.00 09/05/2024

4.11%
2,439,926.80
2,439,932.15

99.09 4.46%
2,417,835.09
22,006.77

0.92%
(22,097.06)
Aaa/AA+
AAA

2.78 2.57
09247XAP6 BLACKROCK FINANCE INC 3.25
04/30/2029 3,400,000.00 07/29/20244.60%
3,205,996.00
3,219,861.42

95.34 4.42%
3,241,505.84
9,515.28

1.23%
21,644.42
Aa3/AANA4.41

4.04 24422EXT1 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 4.85
06/11/2029 3,250,000.00 07/18/20244.62%
3,281,980.00
3,279,565.40
101.52

4.47%
3,299,463.31
74,434.03

1.26%
19,897.91
A1/A
A+

4.53 3.94
437076DC3 HOME DEPOT INC 4.75
06/25/2029 3,250,000.00 07/18/20244.59%
3,272,652.50
3,270,925.74
101.07

4.49%
3,284,737.50
66,895.83

1.25%
13,811.75
A2/A
A

4.57 3.92
532457CQ9 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.2 08/14/2029 3,275,000.00 08/12/2024

4.24%
3,268,882.55
3,269,247.72

99.11 4.41%
3,245,978.06
40,882.92

1.24%
(23,269.66)
A1/A+
NA

4.70 4.17
171239AL0 CHUBB INA HOLDINGS LLC 4.65
08/15/2029 2,800,000.00 08/15/20244.47%
2,821,364.00
2,820,089.78
100.48

4.53%
2,813,390.89
43,761.67

1.07%
(6,698.89)
A2/A
A

4.71 4.06
14913UAQ3

CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL
SERVICES CORP 4.375
08/16/2029
3,275,000.00 08/12/2024

4.40%
3,270,820.05
3,271,064.99

99.57 4.48%
3,260,909.71
41,790.36

1.24%
(10,155.28)
A2/A
A+

4.71 4.16
69371RT48 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.0
09/26/2029 1,600,000.00 09/23/20244.05%
1,596,704.00
1,596,823.13

97.78 4.52%
1,564,553.28
11,555.56

0.60%
(32,269.85)
A1/A+
NA

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Total Corporate 29,790,000.00 4.06%
29,656,805.90
29,666,628.70

99.05 4.46%
29,495,517.13
357,645.19

11.22%
(171,111.57)
A1/A+
A+

3.91 3.48

MONEY MARKET
FUND
31846V807 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 6,829,831.19 --

4.25%
6,829,831.19
6,829,831.19

1.00 4.25%
6,829,831.19

0.00 2.60%

0.00 Aaa/
AAAm
AAA

0.00 0.00
Total Money
Market Fund 6,829,831.19 4.25%
6,829,831.19
6,829,831.19

1.00 4.25%
6,829,831.19

0.00 2.60%

0.00 Aaa/
AAAm
AAA

0.00 0.00

MUNICIPAL
BONDS
13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA ST 4.5 08/01/2029 2,715,000.00 10/30/2024

4.37%
2,729,308.05
2,729,093.02
100.81

4.30%
2,737,072.95
8,823.75

1.04%
7,979.93
Aa2/AAAA4.67

4.11 Total Municipal
Bonds 2,715,000.00 4.37%
2,729,308.05
2,729,093.02
100.81

4.30%
2,737,072.95
8,823.75

1.04%
7,979.93
Aa2/AAAA4.67

4.11 SUPRANATIONAL
45950KCT5 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP

0.375 07/16/2025 2,000,000.00 06/03/20210.62%
1,980,000.00
1,996,981.38

97.47 4.55%
1,949,363.96
2,812.50

0.74%
(47,617.42)
Aaa/AAA
NA

0.62 0.61
459058JL8

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 0.5 10/28/2025
3,000,000.00 01/22/2021

0.50%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

96.56 4.41%
2,896,893.39
1,375.00

1.10%
(103,106.61)
Aaa/AAA
NA

0.91 0.88
45950VPU4 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP

0.75 03/23/2026 2,000,000.00 03/23/20210.81%
1,994,600.00
1,998,589.38

95.13 4.63%
1,902,580.04
2,833.33

0.72%
(96,009.34)
Aaa/AAA
NA

1.31 1.27
45906M3G4

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 4.0 09/09/2027
3,000,000.00 09/09/2022

4.00%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

98.21 4.70%
2,946,207.60
27,333.33

1.12%
(53,792.40)
Aaa/NA
NA

2.77 2.56
45906M4E8

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 4.5 06/26/2028
2,000,000.00 06/26/2023

4.53%
1,997,500.00
1,998,217.02

99.77 4.57%
1,995,380.22
38,750.00

0.76%
(2,836.80)
Aaa/AAA
NA

3.57 3.20
459058LN1

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 3.875 10/16/2029
3,865,000.00 --

3.98%
3,846,482.35
3,846,902.53

98.54 4.21%
3,808,420.84
18,721.09

1.45%
(38,481.69)
Aaa/AAA
NA

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Total
Supranational 15,865,000.00 2.59%
15,818,582.35
15,840,690.31

97.71 4.48%
15,498,846.05
91,825.26

5.90%
(341,844.26)
Aaa/AAA
NA

2.59 2.37

US TREASURY
912828ZL7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.375
04/30/2025 2,000,000.00 09/24/20210.66%
1,979,531.25
1,997,663.38

98.35 4.45%
1,967,078.12
642.27

0.75%
(30,585.26)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.41 0.40
912828ZT0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.25
05/31/2025 2,000,000.00 06/02/20210.55%
1,976,091.16
1,997,033.93

97.97 4.45%
1,959,390.62

13.74 0.75%
(37,643.31)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.50 0.48
912828ZW3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.25
06/30/2025 2,000,000.00 09/03/20210.57%
1,975,468.75
1,996,292.20

97.66 4.39%
1,953,164.06
2,092.39

0.74%
(43,128.14)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.58 0.57
91282CAB7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.25
07/31/2025 3,000,000.00 02/12/20210.38%
2,982,773.44
2,997,442.44

97.30 4.43%
2,919,023.43
2,506.79

1.11%
(78,419.01)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

0.67 0.65
91282CBC4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.375
12/31/2025 2,000,000.00 06/02/20210.70%
1,970,768.30
1,993,098.31

95.84 4.36%
1,916,796.88
3,138.59

0.73%
(76,301.43)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.08 1.05
91282CBW0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.75
04/30/2026 3,000,000.00 01/12/20221.45%
2,912,812.50
2,971,382.05

95.21 4.28%
2,856,210.93
1,926.80

1.09%
(115,171.12)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.41 1.38
91282CCF6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.75
05/31/2026 2,000,000.00 09/24/20210.88%
1,988,281.25
1,996,258.22

94.94 4.28%
1,898,828.12

41.21 0.72%
(97,430.10)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.50 1.46
91282CCP4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.625
07/31/2026 2,000,000.00 09/24/20210.90%
1,973,950.30
1,991,071.62

94.25 4.24%
1,884,921.88
4,177.99

0.72%
(106,149.74)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.67 1.62
91282CCW9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.75
08/31/2026 2,000,000.00 10/08/20211.00%
1,975,781.25
1,991,358.19

94.20 4.23%
1,884,062.50
3,812.15

0.72%
(107,295.69)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.75 1.70
91282CCZ2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 0.875
09/30/2026 2,000,000.00 10/08/20211.02%
1,986,406.25
1,995,005.16

94.17 4.22%
1,883,437.50
2,980.77

0.72%
(111,567.66)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

1.83 1.78
912828YU8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1.625
11/30/2026 2,000,000.00 02/28/20221.86%
1,978,437.50
1,990,945.24

95.16 4.18%
1,903,125.00

89.29 0.72%
(87,820.24)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.00 1.93
912828YX2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1.75
12/31/2026 2,000,000.00 03/17/20222.17%
1,961,956.00
1,983,478.03

95.23 4.17%
1,904,687.50
14,646.74

0.72%
(78,790.53)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.08 1.99
91282CEN7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.75
04/30/2027 2,000,000.00 02/09/20244.19%
1,913,750.00
1,935,459.18

96.83 4.14%
1,936,640.62
4,709.94

0.74%
1,181.44
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.41 2.30
91282CFB2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.75
07/31/2027 3,000,000.00 02/09/20244.19%
2,861,608.80
2,893,914.63

96.51 4.15%
2,895,351.57
27,574.73

1.10%
1,436.94
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.67 2.51
91282CFH9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.125
08/31/2027 2,000,000.00 02/09/20244.17%
1,931,718.75
1,947,277.83

97.40 4.13%
1,948,046.88
15,883.98

0.74%
769.05
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.75 2.57
91282CFU0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
10/31/2027 2,000,000.00 06/28/20234.12%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
100.04

4.11%
2,000,781.24
7,064.92

0.76%
781.24
Aaa/AA+
AA+

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CFZ9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
11/30/2027 2,000,000.00 01/25/20244.10%
1,984,380.00
1,987,837.52

99.32 4.12%
1,986,406.24
212.91

0.76%
(1,431.28)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.00 2.80
91282CGC9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
12/31/2027 3,000,000.00 01/25/20244.08%
2,977,500.00
2,982,372.91

99.32 4.11%
2,979,492.18
48,648.10

1.13%
(2,880.73)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.08 2.83
91282CGH8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
01/31/2028 2,000,000.00 01/25/20244.08%
1,957,414.00
1,966,442.12

98.16 4.13%
1,963,203.12
23,396.74

0.75%
(3,239.00)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.17 2.93
91282CGP0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
02/29/2028 2,000,000.00 06/28/20234.06%
1,995,000.00
1,996,529.00

99.62 4.13%
1,992,343.76
20,331.49

0.76%
(4,185.24)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.25 2.98
91282CGT2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
03/31/2028 2,000,000.00 01/25/20244.07%
1,966,020.00
1,972,940.62

98.46 4.12%
1,969,296.88
12,348.90

0.75%
(3,643.74)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.33 3.08
91282CHA2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
04/30/2028 2,000,000.00 01/25/20244.06%
1,956,484.36
1,965,176.31

98.04 4.12%
1,960,703.12
5,994.48

0.75%
(4,473.19)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.42 3.17
91282CHE4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
05/31/2028 2,000,000.00 01/25/20244.07%
1,965,180.00
1,971,999.28

98.40 4.12%
1,967,968.76
199.18

0.75%
(4,030.52)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.50 3.24
91282CHQ7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
07/31/2028 3,000,000.00 01/25/20244.06%
3,007,950.00
3,006,450.64
100.00

4.12%
3,000,117.18
41,362.09

1.14%
(6,333.46)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.67 3.32
91282CHX2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
08/31/2028 2,000,000.00 02/23/20244.35%
2,002,000.00
2,001,658.39
100.84

4.13%
2,016,875.00
22,237.57

0.77%
15,216.61
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.75 3.39
91282CJN2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
11/30/2028 2,000,000.00 02/23/20244.33%
2,003,722.00
2,003,119.47
100.95

4.12%
2,018,906.24
240.38

0.77%
15,786.77
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.00 3.63
91282CJR3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
12/31/2028 3,000,000.00 01/25/20244.04%
2,961,093.75
2,967,808.42

98.63 4.12%
2,958,867.18
47,078.80

1.13%
(8,941.24)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.08 3.68
91282CDW8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1.75
01/31/2029 5,000,000.00 10/29/20244.16%
4,535,156.25
4,544,728.32

91.04 4.11%
4,551,757.80
29,245.92

1.73%
7,029.48
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.17 3.92
91282CEB3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1.875
02/28/2029 3,000,000.00 11/12/20244.30%
2,717,226.56
2,720,472.68

91.38 4.11%
2,741,484.36
14,295.58

1.04%
21,011.68
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.25 3.99
9128286T2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.375
05/15/2029 5,000,000.00 10/29/20244.14%
4,637,304.69
4,644,304.84

93.08 4.09%
4,653,906.25
5,248.62

1.77%
9,601.41
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.45 4.15
91282CEV9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.25
06/30/2029 5,000,000.00 10/23/20244.07%
4,825,585.94
4,829,461.81

96.45 4.11%
4,822,460.95
68,002.72

1.84%
(7,000.86)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.58 4.14
91282CFC0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2.625
07/31/2029 5,500,000.00 10/04/20243.79%
5,221,347.66
5,230,065.45

93.78 4.10%
5,157,968.75
48,255.77

1.96%
(72,096.70)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.67 4.28
91282CLK5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
08/31/2029 5,400,000.00 09/20/20243.53%
5,422,781.25
5,421,909.42

98.01 4.09%
5,292,421.85
49,748.62

2.01%
(129,487.57)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

4.75 4.27
91282CLN9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
09/30/2029 4,000,000.00 10/03/20243.61%
3,979,218.75
3,979,880.28

97.41 4.09%
3,896,562.48
23,846.15

1.48%
(83,317.80)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

HOLDINGS REPORT
Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase Date
Purchase Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Total US Treasury 92,900,000.00 3.19%
90,484,700.71
90,870,837.91

96.57 4.17%
89,642,288.95
551,996.31

34.11%
(1,228,548.96)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

3.16 2.92
Total Portfolio 269,926,139.99 2.88%
266,938,133.16
267,376,798.41

94.78 4.33%
262,783,983.28
1,638,095.66
100.00%
(4,592,815.13)
Aa1/AA
AA+

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 11/01/2024 31846V807 1,984,096.67 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.44% (1,984,096.67) 0.00 (1,984,096.67) 0.00 Purchase 11/04/2024 31846V807 16,930.71 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.41% (16,930.71) 0.00 (16,930.71) 0.00 Purchase 11/06/2024 31846V807 7,100.00 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.39% (7,100.00) 0.00 (7,100.00) 0.00 Purchase 11/13/2024 91282CEB3 3,000,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

1.875 02/28/2029 90.574 4.30% (2,717,226.56) (11,498.62) (2,728,725.18) 0.00 Purchase 11/15/2024 31846V807 95,953.65 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.39% (95,953.65) 0.00 (95,953.65) 0.00 Purchase 11/18/2024 31846V807 3,113,750.00 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.25% (3,113,750.00) 0.00 (3,113,750.00) 0.00 Purchase 11/19/2024 31846V807 41,000.00 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.25% (41,000.00) 0.00 (41,000.00) 0.00 Purchase 11/20/2024 3137H9D71 2,500,000.00 FHMS K-750 A2 3.0 09/25/2029 93.469 4.62% (2,336,718.75) (3,958.33) (2,340,677.08) 0.00 Purchase 11/22/2024 31846V807 3,076,875.00 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.25% (3,076,875.00) 0.00 (3,076,875.00) 0.00 Purchase 11/25/2024 31846V807 26,900.69 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.25% (26,900.69) 0.00 (26,900.69) 0.00 Purchase 11/26/2024 31846V807 2,069,625.00 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.25% (2,069,625.00) 0.00 (2,069,625.00) 0.00 Total Purchase 15,932,231.72 (15,486,177.03) (15,456.95) (15,501,633.98) 0.00 TOTAL
ACQUISITIONS 15,932,231.72 (15,486,177.03) (15,456.95) (15,501,633.98) 0.00 OTHER
Maturity 11/18/2024 3133ENZ94 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT

BANKS FUNDING CORP

4.5 11/18/2024
100.000 4.50% 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
Maturity 11/26/2024 3130AMMF6 (2,000,000.00) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.55 11/26/2024 100.000 0.55% 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 Total Maturity (5,000,000.00) 5,000,000.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 0.00 Sale 11/05/2024 31846V807 (2,729,308.05) FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.39% 2,729,308.05 0.00 2,729,308.05 0.00 Sale 11/07/2024 31846V807 (11,187.85) FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.39% 11,187.85 0.00 11,187.85 0.00 Sale 11/13/2024 31846V807 (692,780.74) FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.39% 692,780.74 0.00 692,780.74 0.00 Sale 11/13/2024 3134H1GL1 (2,000,000.00)

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 5.0
07/18/2028
100.200 5.21% 2,004,000.00 (31,944.44) 2,035,944.44 17,553.92 Sale 11/15/2024 31846V807 (328.65) FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.39% 328.65 0.00 328.65 0.00 Sale 11/20/2024 31846V807 (2,330,677.08) FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 1.000 4.25% 2,330,677.08 0.00 2,330,677.08 0.00 CONFIDENTIAL | 13
City of Santa Barbara Managed | Account #11204 | As of November 30, 2024 Execution Time: 12/06/2024 04:27:25 PM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Total Sale (7,764,282.37) 7,768,282.37 (31,944.44) 7,800,226.81 17,553.92

TOTAL OTHER
TRANSACTIONS (12,764,282.37) 12,768,282.37 (31,944.44) 12,800,226.81 17,553.92 OTHER
Call Redemption 11/22/2024 3134GY3F7 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 5.125
11/22/2027
100.000 5.13% 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
Total Call
Redemption (3,000,000.00) 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 Coupon 11/01/2024 3137FLN91 0.00 FHMS K-091 A2 3.505
03/25/2029 3.79% 7,506.54 0.00 7,506.54 0.00
Coupon 11/01/2024 3137FMCR1 0.00 FHMS K-093 A2 2.982
05/25/2029 3.82% 6,212.50 0.00 6,212.50 0.00
Coupon 11/01/2024 3137FPHK4 0.00 FHMS K-098 A2 2.425
08/25/2029 3.83% 4,243.75 0.00 4,243.75 0.00
Coupon 11/06/2024 3133EMYN6 0.00

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT

BANKS FUNDING CORP

0.71 05/06/2025

0.71% 7,100.00 0.00 7,100.00 0.00
Coupon 11/15/2024 31422X2U5 0.00

FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL
MORTGAGE CORP 3.625
05/15/2026

3.62% 36,250.00 0.00 36,250.00 0.00
Coupon 11/15/2024 9128286T2 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

2.375 05/15/2029 4.14% 59,375.00 0.00 59,375.00 0.00
Coupon 11/17/2024 3130AXU63 0.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANKS 4.625 11/17/2026 4.54% 46,250.00 0.00 46,250.00 0.00 Coupon 11/18/2024 3133ENZ94 0.00

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT

BANKS FUNDING CORP

4.5 11/18/2024

4.50% 67,500.00 0.00 67,500.00 0.00
Coupon 11/19/2024 31422X2W1 0.00

FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL
MORTGAGE CORP 4.1
05/19/2027

4.10% 41,000.00 0.00 41,000.00 0.00
Coupon 11/20/2024 3130AMDY5 0.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANKS 1.0 05/20/2026 1.00% 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 CONFIDENTIAL | 14
City of Santa Barbara Managed | Account #11204 | As of November 30, 2024 Execution Time: 12/06/2024 04:27:25 PM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Coupon 11/22/2024 3134GY3F7 0.00

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 5.125
11/22/2027

5.13% 76,875.00 0.00 76,875.00 0.00
Coupon 11/25/2024 3130ALAR5 0.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANKS 0.5 11/25/2025 0.50% 1,250.00 0.00 1,250.00 0.00
Coupon 11/25/2024 3134GXCS1 0.00

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORP 0.625
11/25/2025

0.63% 9,375.00 0.00 9,375.00 0.00
Coupon 11/26/2024 3130AMMF6 0.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANKS 0.55 11/26/2024 0.55% 5,500.00 0.00 5,500.00 0.00 Coupon 11/26/2024 3130AMFM9 0.00 FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANKS 0.9 12/26/2025 0.90% 13,500.00 0.00 13,500.00 0.00 Coupon 11/26/2024 3133ENXS4 0.00

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT

BANKS FUNDING CORP

3.375 05/26/2026

3.38% 50,625.00 0.00 50,625.00 0.00
Coupon 11/30/2024 912828ZT0 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

0.25 05/31/2025 0.55% 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00
Coupon 11/30/2024 91282CCF6 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

0.75 05/31/2026 0.88% 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 0.00
Coupon 11/30/2024 912828YU8 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

1.625 11/30/2026 1.86% 16,250.00 0.00 16,250.00 0.00
Coupon 11/30/2024 91282CHE4 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.625 05/31/2028 4.07% 36,250.00 0.00 36,250.00 0.00
Coupon 11/30/2024 91282CFZ9 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

3.875 11/30/2027 4.10% 38,750.00 0.00 38,750.00 0.00
Coupon 11/30/2024 91282CJN2 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY

4.375 11/30/2028 4.33% 43,750.00 0.00 43,750.00 0.00
Total Coupon 0.00 587,562.79 0.00 587,562.79 0.00
Custody Fee 11/25/2024 CCYUSD (1,687.10) Cash 0.00% (1,687.10) 0.00 (1,687.10) 0.00 Total Custody
Fee (1,687.10) (1,687.10) 0.00 (1,687.10) 0.00
Dividend 11/30/2024 31846V807 0.00 FIRST AMER:TRS OBG Y 4.26% 11,308.80 0.00 11,308.80 0.00 Total Dividend 0.00 11,308.80 0.00 11,308.80 0.00
CONFIDENTIAL | 15
City of Santa Barbara Managed | Account #11204 | As of November 30, 2024 Execution Time: 12/06/2024 04:27:25 PM Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

TRANSACTION LEDGER
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Management
Fee 11/07/2024 CCYUSD (11,187.85) Cash 0.00% (11,187.85) 0.00 (11,187.85) 0.00 Total
Management
Fee (11,187.85) (11,187.85) 0.00 (11,187.85) 0.00

TOTAL OTHER
TRANSACTIONS (3,012,874.95) 3,585,996.64 0.00 3,585,996.64 0.00 ENDING BALANCE AS OF November 30, 2024
Book
Description Value
River City Bank Lockbox Account $ 1,632,354
River City Bank ICS (Investment Account) 24,309,694
Total Cash and Investments $ 25,942,048
November 30, 2024
ATTACHMENT 2

COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (CCA)

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Summary of Cash and Investments
Activity Summary by Source
Balance on Balance on
Source 11/01/2024 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 11/30/2024 PENSION $2,424,946.94 $0.00 $72,998.69 $(1,205.53) $0.00 $0.00 $2,496,740.10 Totals $2,424,946.94 $0.00 $72,998.69 $(1,205.53) $0.00 $0.00 $2,496,740.10

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
City of Santa Barbara PARS PAPEBT
Monthly Account Report for the Period
11/01/2024 to 11/30/2024
Investment Performance
Annualized Return Inception
Source 1-Month 3-Month 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years Date PENSION 3.01% 2.41% - - - - 01/26/2024

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2025 Agreement with People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) for Operation of a Homeless Shelter and Related Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Community Development Director to execute a funding agreement in the amount of $202,100 with People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) for the operation of a homeless shelter and related services.

DISCUSSION:

PATH operates a low-barrier shelter for persons experiencing homelessness, including interim housing and basic support services such as three meals per day, access to showers, bathrooms, and hygiene. Beyond basic needs, residents have access to case management and on-site resources such as physical and behavioral healthcare, harm reduction–based substance use counseling, housing location assistance, veteran services, and employment and benefits assistance.

The City has provided PATH with annual funding to support operations since its inception in 1999. Since Fiscal Year 2015, the City has provided a total of $202,100 annually.

Starting in Fiscal Year 2023, the City has contracted with PATH to use this funding to reserve up to seven beds for homeless persons referred by City staff, the Santa Barbara Police Department, and the City’s contracted street outreach service provider, City Net.

PATH has similar agreements with the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness, Cottage Hospital’s Medical Recuperative Care Program, and the City of Goleta.

This arrangement has led to collaboration between PATH staff, City staff, and street outreach workers. Staff meets weekly to case-manage persons placed in the shelter, with client-specific case conferencing held as needed. A total of 20 unduplicated persons were sheltered in FY 2023; of those, two were permanently housed.

Agenda Item No. 18
File Code No. 660.01
Council Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Agreement with People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) for Operation of a Homeless Shelter and Related Services [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

Conditional Use Permit Requirements
This agreement also incorporates some of PATH’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) conditions, specifically, the terms for neighborhood watch/patrol and neighborhood communication and outreach. In accordance with the terms of PATH’s CUP requiring neighborhood communication, PATH staff members attend bimonthly Regional Action Plan (RAP) meetings on the Eastside to discuss operations and hear directly from concerned residents. Recordings of the Eastside RAP meetings are available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@sbactnow/featured. Additionally, PATH’s leadership team does regular community walks to visit neighboring businesses to hear concerns and provide information on community resources. PATH staff also conducts daily checks of the immediate area of the facility to clean up trash and to direct people who are not PATH clients to more suitable locations.

Since the departure of PATH’s street outreach employee earlier this year, PATH has been unable to restaff the position; thus, in the interim, street outreach is being conducted by existing shelter staff. In September, PATH brought in an AmeriCorps worker to provide street outreach Monday through Friday. This person recently completed training and is now enrolling clients.

Although PATH has met the terms of its CUP, impact to the surrounding neighborhood remains significant. Consequently, City staff from Community Development, Sustainability and Resilience, the Police Department, and the City Administrator’s Office continue to prioritize the region for encampment and litter cleanup, law enforcement response, and neighborhood relations. In addition, City staff and PATH leadership developed action items in and around the shelter with the goal of reducing issues that continue to affect the area, such as loitering, encampments, and drug use. Staff meets with PATH leadership monthly to receive progress updates on this worklist.

Search for Alternative Shelter Options
A shelter such as PATH that does not require its clients to achieve sobriety or meet other pre-qualifying conditions to receive support and case management is a vital resource within the spectrum of services available to unhoused persons; however, a low-barrier shelter is not always a suitable option for people who may prefer a more structured environment. To meet this need, staff is exploring additional shelter providers with whom to reserve shelter beds for Fiscal Year 2026.

Council Agenda Report
Fiscal Year 2025 Agreement with People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) for Operation of a Homeless Shelter and Related Services [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 3 ends

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Community Development’s adopted Fiscal Year 2025 budget contains sufficient expenditure appropriations to cover the recommended agreement with PATH. The PATH agreement is a planned expenditure and was included as part of Community Development’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget submittal. Funding for this agreement consists of $132,100 from the Affordable Housing Fund budget and $70,000 from the General Fund budget for a total of $202,100.

A copy of the contract/agreement is available for public review. Please contact Community Development Administration at [email protected] to request a copy.

PREPARED BY: Liz Stotts, Homelessness Programs Analyst
SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: Contract with Santa Barbara Unified School District for Park Ranger Patrol Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to enter into a six-month agreement with the Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD) for Park Ranger Patrol Services at SBUSD properties at a cost to SBUSD in the amount of $17,273.

DISCUSSION:

For the past 30 years, the City and SBUSD have had a Park Ranger Patrol Services Agreement whereby Park Rangers patrol school sites. Under this agreement, Park Rangers patrol Santa Barbara and La Cumbre Junior High Schools seven days per week from 3:30 pm until dark; Santa Barbara High School and La Colina, Santa Barbara, and La Cumbre Junior High Schools on weekends from 11:00 am until 7:00 pm; and Franklin, McKinley, Harding University Partnership School, Washington, Cleveland, Roosevelt, Adams, and Monroe Elementary Schools on weekends and holidays from 11:00 am until 7:00 pm. This year, the City and SBUSD entered into a six-month agreement for the first two quarters of the year to provide SBUSD the opportunity to review ranger patrol schedules and make adjustments if desired for the second half of the year. SBUSD did not request any changes so this six-month agreement continues with the same patrol schedule.

Park Ranger duties include coordination with administration at each school for security needs and issues, patrolling facilities, conducting premise security checks, documenting and reporting graffiti and vandalism, enforcing appropriately adopted rules and prohibitions per SBUSD direction, and issuing citations as necessary. During the 2023- 2024 academic school year, rangers conducted over 1,506 patrols.

Agenda Item No. 19
File Code No. 570.06
Council Agenda Report
Contract with Santa Barbara Unified School District for Park Ranger Patrol Services [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Revenue and funding for these agreements is included within the adopted Fiscal Year 2025 Parks and Recreation General Fund Budget.

A copy of the agreement may be requested from Parks and Recreation for public review by emailing [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Jazmin LeBlanc, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: First Contract Amendment with Design Arc, Inc. for the Franceschi Park Interpretive Pavilion Preliminary Design [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute a first contract amendment with Design Arc, Inc. in the amount of $41,684 for the Franceschi Park Interpretive Pavilion Preliminary Design.

DISCUSSION:

On November 7, 2023, the City Council authorized the Parks and Recreation Director to execute a professional services agreement with Design Arc, Inc. to develop preliminary design documents in support of an interpretive pavilion to replace Franceschi House in Franceschi Park. Over the course of the last year, the Parks and Recreation Department (Department) and Design Arc, Inc. conducted two community design workshops, two community online surveys, and presented conceptual designs to the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The Department also developed a detailed project web page that hosts all project documents, responds to frequently asked questions and provides project updates.

The purpose of this contract amendment is to cover additional civil engineering, electrical engineering, landscape architectural and building architectural design work required to include an accessible path of travel, pathways and parking area to the proposed interpretive pavilion.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The professional services agreement with Design ARC as authorized by the City Council was for $332,783. With the proposed amendment, the new contract is $374,647. There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Department’s Fiscal Year 2025 Capital Fund to cover the additional cost of preliminary design services.

Agenda Item No. 20
File Code No. 570.05
Council Agenda Report
First Contract Amendment with Design Arc, Inc. for the Franceschi Park Interpretive Pavilion Preliminary Design [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The proposed project design will incorporate the use of green building materials and energy efficient lighting to the greatest extent feasible. Water conservation will also be maximized with the use of drought tolerant landscaping.

A copy of the agreement for public review may be requested from the Parks and Recreation Department by contacting Courtney Carlson at [email protected].

PREPARED AND
SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Waterfront Department
SUBJECT: Increase Contract for Cruise Ship Passenger Shuttle Service with Santa Barbara Airbus [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Waterfront Director to increase Professional Service Agreement No. 28,040 with Santa Barbara Airbus, Inc. in the amount of $22,000 for a total contract amount of $150,705 for cruise ship shuttle services.

DISCUSSION:

Cruise ships have regularly visited Santa Barbara since 2009. Cruise ships frequent Santa Barbara during non-peak business seasons between, typically between March and May and again in late-September through November.

Santa Barbara receives continued praise from cruise ship passengers and cruise ship operators for the consistent organization and hospitality shown to passengers departing the ship and visiting the shore-side hospitality tent. The hospitality tent, coordinated by the Waterfront Department, is a collaborative effort that includes Visit Santa Barbara, Downtown Santa Barbara, and the Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region.

Many cruise ship passengers depart the hospitality area on pre-paid excursions. For those not taking an excursion, the Waterfront Department contracts with local transportation companies to offer free shuttle service to several locations throughout downtown. This service has proved invaluable in getting cruise ship passengers to the doorsteps of local businesses.

Staff issued a Request for Proposals for a transportation company in November of 2021 to provide shuttle services for cruise ship passengers. Santa Barbara Airbus, Inc. was the successful bidder.

The requested contract increase is for the remainder of FY25, which will cover the cost of cruise ship shuttles at the end of the 2024 Fall season and the 2025 Spring season.

Agenda Item No. 21
File Code No. 570.03
Council Agenda Report
Increase Contract for Cruise Ship Passenger Shuttle Service with Santa Barbara Airbus [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Santa Barbara Airbus currently has the following rates:
i. 56 passenger Tour Coach - $1,375. Five hour minimum. Additional hours to be paid at a rate of $215 per hour.
ii. 24 Passenger Mini Coach - $950. Five hour minimum. Additional hours to be paid at a rate of $180 per hour.

The number and type of shuttles required for each cruise ship visit are determined by the passenger occupancy of the particular ship visiting.

These costs are charged to the Waterfront Department’s Operating Budget and are directly offset by cruise ship revenues. The Waterfront is only charged by Santa Barbara Airbus if a cruise ship visits Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara Airbus shuttle service was provided. Adequate expenditure appropriations exist in the Waterfront Department’s FY2025 operating budget.

A copy of the professional services agreement is available for public review from the Waterfront Department; please email [email protected] to request a copy.

PREPARED BY: Angela Rodriguez, Administrative Analyst III SUBMITTED BY: Mike Wiltshire, Waterfront Director
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Imposed on Real Property Located at 229 San Clemente Street [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Community Development Director to execute a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Imposed on the Real Property located at 229 San Clemente St. A.P.N. 045-151-008, in a form approved by the City Attorney, releasing the City from liability regarding the demolition of an existing one-story residence and shed and the construction of a new two-story residence with a basement, accessory dwelling unit, driveway, and garage in which part of that construction shall be over an abandoned oil well.

DISCUSSION:

The Property Owners of 229 San Clemente Street (the “Property”) seek to obtain building permits to complete the demolition of an existing one-story residence and shed and construct a new two-story residence with a basement, accessory dwelling unit, driveway, and garage on the Real Property. During initial demolition work, the Property owners discovered that the house was constructed over an abandoned oil well located on the Property site. This is the same site where the Property owners desire to build their new residence.

Due to the location of the abandoned oil well, the Property Owners and City followed the legal requirement seeking the advice and determination of the California Department of Conservation as to whether construction could take place over the abandoned oil well.

On September 27, 2024, the California Department of Conservation issued the Owners a Construction Site Well Review advice letter advising against building over the oil well (Attachment 1).

The letter cites Public Resources Code (PRC) § 3208.1, which establishes oil well reabandonment responsibility when a previously plugged and abandoned well is impacted by new planned property development or construction activities. The Code also provides Agenda Item No. 22
File Code No. 640.08
Council Agenda Report
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Imposed on Real Property Located at 229 San Clemente Street [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

that both the person and/or entity causing the construction over or near the abandoned well shall be legally responsible for the re-abandonment. Re-abandonment may include the need to demolish the new construction built over the abandoned oil well. The reason for this is that there are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance under prescribed law will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned.

The Property Owners desire to accept all risks and indemnify the City for the construction of the new residence, garage, driveway, and accessory dwelling unit under Public Resources Code Section 3208.1, which could necessitate the demolition of the structures of the Property if there was a leak. Therefore, entering into a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC & R”) to set upon the Property for the benefit of the City and the Property’s respective successors and assigns for the purpose of putting owners of the Property on notice of the previously abandoned oil well, and to protect against possible future harm. Because the potential liability amount could be over $100,000 and that the CC & Rs run with the land, it is advisable to obtain City Council approval to bind the City.

BUDGETARY IMPACTS:

None as Property Owners are assuming liability.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. September 27, 2024 letter from the California Department of Conservation.

2. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Imposed for the Real Property Located at 229 San Clemente Street.

PREPARED AND
SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
09/27/2024
City: Santa Barbara - Community Development
Chris Short
630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA
[email protected]
Construction Site Well Review (CSWR) ID: 1012199
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 045151008
Property Owner(s): Jeremy and Virginia Ellis
Project Location Address: 229 San Clemente Santa Barbara, California 93109 Project Title: 229 San Clemente, Santa Barbara, CA 93109 Public Resources Code (PRC) § 3208.1 establishes well reabandonment responsibility when a previously plugged and abandoned well will be impacted by planned property development or construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near oil, gas, and geothermal wells.

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) has received and reviewed the above referenced project dated 9/26/2024. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making wise land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, the Division provides the following well evaluation.

The project is located in Santa Barbara County, within the boundaries of the following fields:

Mesa (ABD)
The Mesa Oil Field was discovered in 1929. Review of historical aerial imagery in this area identified wooden oil derricks, oil well drilling and production sumps, and other accessory oilfield equipment. Any

Page 1 ends

Attachment 1
excavation may encounter oilfield impacted soil.

The Division recommends that well "Midwestern L" 1 (API 0408303681) within the property be researched, located, and surveyed to ensure that any construction does not impede access. If any well locations are found to differ from CalGEM records, an updated plot plan identifying the well locations relative to the proposed structure(s) is expected to be provided, prior to conducting construction.

CalGEM’s online well mapping tool, Well Finder, can be accessed at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx Our records indicate there are 1 known oil or gas wells located within the project boundary as identified in the application.
• Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 1 • Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 • Number of wells Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 • Number of wells Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law and Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0 The Division categorically advises against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas, or geothermal wells. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking. Maintaining sufficient access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure.

There are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance with current Division requirements as prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. The Division acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current Division requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantees that such abandonments will not leak.

Page 2 ends

The Division advises that all wells identified on the development parcel prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations should be provided to the Division in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format. The Division expects any wells found leaking to be reported to it immediately.

Failure to plug and reabandon the well may result in enforcement action, including an order to perform reabandonment well work, pursuant to PRC § 3208.1, and 3224.

PRC § 3208.1 give the Division the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not accessible or visible. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for reabandonment as:

1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment.

2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be reabandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment.

3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the reabandonment.

No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from the Division. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other

Page 3 ends

fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. The Division also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR §1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from the Division is required before work can start.

The Division makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer:

1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements near oil or gas wells, the Division recommends that information regarding the above identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property.

2. The Division recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development.

As indicated in PRC § 3106, the Division has statutory authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to the Division's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC §§ 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC §§ 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within the Division's jurisdictional authority. The Division does not regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues.

If during development activities, any wells are encountered that were not part of this review, the property owner is expected to immediately notify the Division's construction site well review engineer in the Northern district office, and file for Division review an amended site plan with well casing diagrams.

The District office will send a follow-up well evaluation letter to the property owner and local permitting agency.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 937-7246 or via email at [email protected].

Page 4 ends

Sincerely,
Trey Powell
Northern District Deputy
cc: Chris Short - Plan Checker

Page 5 ends

Wells Not Abandoned to Current Division Requirements as Prescribed by Law & Projected to be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded
The wells listed below are not abandoned to current Division requirements as prescribed by law, and based upon information provided, are projected to be built over or have future access impeded. The Division expects these wells to be reabandoned in compliance with current California law, prior to development activities.

API Well Designation Operator Well Evaluations
0408303681 Midwestern L 1 1. Hole fluid is not to
current standards (CCR
section 1723. (b)). The
well history does not
specify what, if any,
abandonment mud was
used between cement
plugs.

2. Hydrocarbon zone
plug is not to current
standards (CCR section
1723.1).

3. Casing shoe plug is
not to current standards
(CCR section 1723.3)

4. Surface plug is not to
current standards (CCR
section 1723.5)

Page 6 ends

Attachment 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Authorization to Amend the Legal Services Agreement with Best, Best & Krieger, LLP [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement with Best, Best & Krieger, LLP to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $135,000 to $250,000 for special counsel services related to investigation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances at the airport and communication with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the same.

DISCUSSION:

In April 2021, the City entered into an agreement with Best, Best & Krieger to assist the City in working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to address the investigation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances concentrations at the Airport. Expenditures on the contract are anticipated to exceed the current contract amount of $135,000. Increasing the contract amount by an additional $115,000 is necessary to avoid an interruption of service.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The cost for legal support for this case will be paid from the Airport Operating Fund reserves.

PREPARED BY: Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Agenda Item No. 23
File Code No. 540.01

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Police Department
SUBJECT: Agreement with the County of Santa Barbara for Mental Health Mobile Crisis Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute a two-year service agreement with the County of Santa Barbara for Mental Health Mobile Crisis Services beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2026, with annual fees not to exceed $138,080 in Fiscal Year 2025, and $140,031 in Fiscal Year 2026.

DISCUSSION:

This two-year agreement is for the continuation of mobile crisis response and coresponse teams within the City of Santa Barbara on a 24-hour/seven-day-a--week basis.

These mobile services provide emergency mental health evaluation and assessment to individuals suffering psychiatric distress.

Santa Barbara Police Department’s multi-tiered approach and current protocols balance the specialized skills of mental health professionals with the operational capabilities of law enforcement, ensuring improved outcomes for people experiencing a mental health crisis. This tiered approach ensures that individuals in crisis receive the most appropriate and effective care available, whether from mental health professionals, integrated coresponse teams, or specially trained law enforcement officers. It allows flexibility and responsiveness while maintaining a high standard of care and safety for all involved. By leveraging the strengths of mental health professionals and trained law enforcement personnel, our current protocol provides a more comprehensive and effective response to mental health crises than a model that relies solely on law enforcement officers to place persons on 5150 holds.

The Co-Response Teams, a Co-Response Officer with their clinical partner from Behavioral Wellness, evaluate people in crisis, with an emphasis on attempting to deescalate potentially volatile situations. The Co-Response Team may provide Agenda Item No. 24
File Code No. 520.04
Council Agenda Report
Agreement With the County of Santa Barbara for Mental Health Mobile Crisis Services [Agreement]
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

transportation for individuals experiencing mental crisis to community-based facilities for evaluation and treatment, rather than arrest. Additionally, they conduct proactive engagement and follow up with individuals who are frequently involved in mental health crisis calls and link them to housing, substance abuse treatment, social services, health care, and related resources in service of keeping them out of future crisis.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Funding for this agreement is included in the Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget and will be included in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

A copy of the contract/agreement is is attached to this report for public review.

ATTACHMENT: 1. Copy of Proposed Agreement
PREPARED BY: Christopher Payne, Commander
SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Gordon, Chief of Police
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 1 of 8 ends

WITH CITY OF SANTA BARBARA FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR

MENTAL HEALTH MOBILE CRISIS SERVICES
BC__________
THIS AGREEMENT (hereafter Agreement) is made by and between the County of Santa Barbara, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereafter “County”) and City of Santa Barbara (hereafter “City”) for the continued provision of Mobile Crisis Services to City by County, and City’s continued payment of fees to County for services rendered.

Whereas, in order to help reduce the burden of providing mental health evaluation services faced by public safety agencies in Santa Barbara County, County previously contracted with American Medical Response (AMR) for the provision of emergency mental health evaluation services (also known as Mental Health Assessment Team (MHAT)) wherein AMR, in coordination with County, responded to suspected psychiatric emergencies presented by individuals over the age of 18 in Santa Barbara County; and Whereas, during Fiscal Year 2008-09, County expanded programs to include mobile crisis services to provide emergency health evaluation services to adult residents of the County, twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week and eliminated the Contract with AMR for MHAT services; and Whereas, during Fiscal Year 2015-16, County, in an effort to decrease response times, expedite appropriate care, and relieve overburdened medical and law enforcement personnel, expanded programs to include a Mobile Crisis Team West in Lompoc, in addition to Mobile Crisis teams in the North and South County; and
Whereas, during Fiscal Years 2016-17, County expanded the crisis system to include a Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) in Santa Barbara, which opened in January 2016; and Whereas, during Fiscal Years 2018-2019, County expanded the crisis system to include a Crisis Residential Treatment Facility in Santa Maria, which opened in November 2018; and Whereas, during the Fiscal Years 2024-2026, County will continue to maintain the mobile crisis system and co-response teams with the City of Santa Barbara; and Whereas, City has historically underwritten a portion of the costs of providing emergency mental health evaluations because services have been provided to City residents; and Whereas, it is deemed to be in the best interest of City and County that Mobile Crisis Services continue to be delivered to City residents and other Santa Barbara County residents and City thereby agrees to continue its contribution to County for Mobile Crisis Services rendered by County for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2026.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: Director at phone number 805-681-5220 is the designated representative of County and shall administer this Agreement for and on behalf of County. City Administrator at phone number 805-564-5305 is the designated representative for City. Changes in designated representatives shall be made only after advance written notice to the other party.

2. NOTICES. Any notice or consent required or permitted to be given to the respective parties in writing, by personal delivery or facsimile, or with first-class mail, postage prepaid, or express courier service, as follows:

Attachment 1

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 2 of 8 ends

A. To County: Antonette Navaro, LMFT
Director
Santa Barbara County
Department of Behavioral Wellness
300 N. San Antonio Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
B. To City: Lori Pedersen, Business Manager
City of Santa Barbara
215 E Figueroa St
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
or at such other address, or to such other person, that the parties may from time-to-time designate in accordance to this Notices section. If sent by first class mail, notices and consents under this section shall be deemed to have been received five (5) days following the deposit in the United States mail. This Notices section shall not be construed as meaning that either party agrees to service of process except as required by applicable law.

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES. County agrees to provide services to City in accordance with Exhibit A(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

4. TERM. County shall commence performance on July 1, 2024 and end performance upon completion, but no later than June 30, 2026 unless otherwise directed by City or unless earlier terminated.

5. COMPENSATION OF COUNTY. City shall pay County under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of Exhibit B and Exhibit B-1 (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). Billing shall be made by invoice, which shall include the contract number assigned by County and which is delivered to City at the address given in Section 2 NOTICES above. Unless otherwise specified on Exhibit B, payment shall be due net thirty (30) days from presentation of invoice.

6. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. County represents that it has the skills, expertise, and licenses and/or permits necessary to perform the services required under this Agreement.

Accordingly, County shall perform all such services in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the same profession in which contracted provider is engaged. Permits and/or licenses shall be obtained and maintained by County or its Contracted Providers without additional compensation.

7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The parties covenant that the parties presently have no interest and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreement. The parties further covenant that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest will be employed by the parties.

8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. County shall be the owner of the following items incidental to this Agreement upon production, whether or not completed: all data collected and any material necessary for the practical use of the data and/or documents from the time of collection and/or production, whether or not performance under this Agreement is completed or terminated prior to completion.

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 3 of 8 ends

9. COUNTY PROPERTY AND INFORMATION. All of County’s property, documents, and information provided for City’s use in connection with the services shall remain County’s property, and City shall return any such items whenever requested by County and whenever required according to the Termination section of this Agreement. City may use such items only in connection with the services. City shall not disseminate any County property, documents, or information without County’s prior written consent.

10. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION. City shall defend, indemnify, and hold County, its officers, officials, employees or agents harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), or claims for injury or damages arising out of the performance of this Agreement but only in proportion to and to the extent such liability, loss, expense, attorneys’ fees, or claims for injury or damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of City, its officers, officials, employees or agents.

County shall defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officers, officials, employees or agents harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), or claims for injury or damages arising out of the performance of this Agreement but only in proportion to and to the extent such liability, loss, expense, attorneys’ fees, or claims for injury or damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of County, its officers, officials, employees or agents.

11. INSURANCE. Each party shall maintain its own insurance coverage, through commercial insurance, self-insurance or a combination thereof, against any claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability arising out of the performance of its responsibilities pursuant to this Agreement.

12. NON-DISCRIMINATION. County hereby notifies City that Santa Barbara County Unlawful Discrimination Ordinance (Article XIII of Chapter 2 of the Santa Barbara County Code) applies to this Agreement and is incorporated herein by this reference with the same force and effect as if the ordinance were specifically set out herein, and City agrees to comply with said ordinance.

13. TERMINATION.

A. By County. County may, by written notice to City, terminate this Agreement in whole or in part at any time, whether for County convenience or because of the failure of City to fulfill the obligations herein.
i. For Convenience. County may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part upon thirty (30) days’ written notice. At the end of the thirty (30) day period, the Mobile Crisis services being provided to City by County shall cease.
ii. For Cause. Should City default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, County may, at the County’s sole option, terminate or suspend this Agreement in whole or in part by written notice. Upon receipt of notice, County shall immediately discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise) and notify City as to the status of its performance. The date of termination shall be the date the notice is received by City, unless the notice directs otherwise.

B. By City. City may, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to County, terminate this Agreement in whole or in part at any time, whether for City convenience or because of the failure of County to fulfill the obligations herein. At the end of the thirty (30) day period, County shall cease work and notify City as to the status of its performance.

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 4 of 8 ends

14. SECTION HEADINGS. The headings of the several sections, and any Table of Contents appended hereto, shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction or effect hereof.

15. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such provision or provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions hereof, and such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision, hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.

16. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the parties is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy or remedies, and each and every such remedy, to the extent permitted by law, shall be cumulative and in addition to any other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or otherwise.

17. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. No delay or omission of the parties to exercise any right or power arising upon the occurrence of any event of default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or an acquiescence therein; and every power and remedy given by this Agreement to the parties shall be exercised from time-to-time and as often as may be deemed expedient in the sole discretion of either party.

18. NONEXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT. City understands that this is not an exclusive Agreement and that County will have the right to negotiate with and enter into contracts with others to provide the same or similar services as those provided to the City as the County desires.

19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AMENDMENTS, AND MODIFICATIONS. In conjunction with the matters considered herein, this Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties and there have been no promises, representations, agreements, warranties or undertakings by any of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature hereafter binding except as set forth herein. This Agreement may be altered, amended or modified only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this Agreement and by no other means. Each party waives its future right to claim, contest or assert that this Agreement was modified, canceled, superseded, or changed by any oral Agreements, course of conduct, waiver or estoppel.

20. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All representations, covenants and warranties set forth in this Agreement, by or on behalf of or for the benefit of any or all of the parties hereto, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of such party, its successors and assigns.

21. CALIFORNIA LAW AND JURISDICTION. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any litigation regarding this Agreement or its contents shall be filed in the County of Santa Barbara, if in State court, or in the Federal District Court nearest to Santa Barbara County, if in Federal court.

22. EXECUTION OF COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts, or as many of them as the parties shall preserve undestroyed, shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

23. AUTHORITY. All parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement in the names, titles and capacities herein stated and on behalf of any entities, persons, or firms represented or purported to be represented by such entity(ies), person(s), or firm(s) and have complied with all formal requirements necessary or required by any state and/or federal law in order to enter into this Agreement have been fully

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 5 of 8 ends

complied with. Furthermore, by entering into this Agreement, City hereby warrants that it shall not have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or Agreement to which City is obligated which breach would have a material effect hereon.

24. SURVIVAL. All provisions of this Agreement which by their nature are intended to survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive such termination or expiration.

25. PRECEDENCE. In the event of conflict between the provisions contained in the numbered sections of this Agreement and the provisions contained in the Exhibits, the provisions of the Exhibits shall prevail over those in the numbered sections.

26. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Any dispute or disagreement arising under this contract shall first be addressed and resolved at the lowest possible staff level between the appropriate representatives of the City and of the County. If it cannot be resolved at this level, it is to be elevated to the City’s Program Manager and County’s designated Program Manager. If the Managers cannot resolve the dispute, they are to take the following actions:

A. Decision - Each party shall reduce the dispute to writing and submit to the appropriate Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Department (Behavioral Wellness) Assistant Director.

The Assistant Director shall assemble a team to investigate the dispute and to prepare a written decision. This decision shall be furnished to the City within thirty business (30) days of receipt of the dispute documentation. This decision shall be final unless appealed within ten (10) days of receipt.

B. Appeal –The City may appeal the decision (Item A above) in writing to the Behavioral Wellness Director, or designee, at 300 N. San Antonio Road, Santa Barbara, CA, 93110.

C. The decision of the Behavioral Wellness Director or designee shall be put in writing within twenty business (20) days of receipt of the City’s appeal of the decision (Item A above) and a copy thereof mailed to the City’s address for notices. The decision of the Behavioral Wellness Director or designee shall be final.

D. Pending final decision of the dispute hereunder, City and County shall proceed diligently with the performance of this Agreement.

E. The finality of appeal described herein is meant to imply only that recourse to resolution of disputes through this particular Dispute Resolution mechanism has been concluded. This is in no way meant to imply that the parties have agreed that this mechanism replaces either party’s rights to have its disputes with the other party heard and adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction.

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 6 of 8 ends

THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDES:

1. EXHIBIT A – Statement of Work

2. EXHIBIT A-1 – Statement of Work (City of Santa Barbara only)

3. EXHIBIT B – Fees and Payment to County

4. EXHIBIT B-1 – Schedule of Fees

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 7 of 8 ends

Agreement for Supplemental Funding for Mental Health Mobile Crisis Services between the County of Santa Barbara and City of Santa Barbara.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective on July 1, 2024.

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

RACHEL VAN MULLEM

COUNTY COUNSEL
By____________________________
Deputy County Counsel
APPROVED AS TO ACCOUNTING FORM:

BETSY M. SCHAFFER, CPA

AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
By____________________________
Deputy

ANTONETTE NAVARRO, LMFT,

DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL WELLNESS
By____________________________
Director
APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE FORM:

GREG MILLIGAN, ARM

RISK MANAGER
By: ____________________________
Manager

AGREEMENT
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Agreement

Page 8 of 8 ends

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in triplicate, to be effective on July 1, 2024.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
A Municipal Corporation
______________________________
Kelly Gordon
Chief of Police
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sarah Knecht, City Attorney
By ___________________________
John Doimas
Assistant City Attorney

EXHIBIT A
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Exhibit A

Page 1 of 2 ends

I. PROGRAM SUMMARY. The Department of Behavioral Wellness shall provide Mobile Crisis services to all residents in all areas of the county through staffing of Mobile Crisis units. Mobile Crisis services may be provided by Triage Teams, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Team, Homeless outreach Team or Behavioral Wellness clinic staff to clients who have a case file (episode) open to County.

II. SERVICE PROCEDURE.

A. County shall provide Mobile Crisis Services twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, including appropriate psychiatric crisis intervention and stabilization services and emergency mental health evaluation, by responding in person or by telephone to suspected psychiatric emergencies presented by individuals over the age of 18, in all areas of Santa Barbara County, in all locations, including but not limited to residences, the field, clinics, emergency facilities, hospitals, and Santa Barbara County Jail – South County facility (4436 Calle Real, Santa Barbara).

Additionally, individuals may receive Mobile Crisis Services in the County’s Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and Crisis Residential Respite House (“Crisis Res”).

1. County shall respond as directed by the Santa Barbara County Public Safety Communications Center (hereafter “Dispatch”), hospital emergency rooms and other County mental health providers.

2. County will attempt to make initial contact with the reporting party to obtain preliminary information as required by Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §5150.05 that may impact the need for response, deployment of additional resources and/or to expedite resolution of the crisis.

3. For individuals experiencing psychiatric emergencies County will consult with the County Oncall Psychiatrist, or Behavioral Wellness Clinic Supervisor for review of the individual’s condition and a determination of the individual’s need for hospitalization, pursuant to WIC §5150. County will refer individuals not deemed to need hospitalization to appropriate resources.

4. Services provided by Mobile Crisis staff may include:
i. Crisis intervention: Crisis intervention is a service lasting less than 24 hours, for or on behalf of a client for a condition that requires a more timely response than a regularly scheduled visit, as defined in Title 9 CCR Section 1810.209. Crisis intervention services may either be face-to-face or by telephone with the beneficiary or the beneficiary's significant support person and may be provided anywhere in the community. Service activities include, but are not limited to, assessment, collateral, and therapy. Crisis intervention is distinguished from crisis stabilization by being delivered by providers who do not meet the crisis stabilization contact, site, and staffing requirements as defined in Title 9 CCR Sections 1840.338 and 1840.348.
ii. Case Management: Services that assist a beneficiary to access needed medical, educational, social, prevocational, vocational, rehabilitative, or other community services.

The service activities may include, but are not limited to, communication, coordination, and referral; monitoring service delivery to ensure beneficiary access to service and the service delivery system; monitoring of the beneficiary's progress; placement services; and plan development, as defined in Title 9 CCR Section 1810.249.

EXHIBIT A
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Exhibit A

Page 2 of 2 ends

iii. Crisis Respite Residential Treatment Service: Crisis Residential Treatment Services (CRTS) are therapeutic or rehabilitative services provided in a non-institutional residential setting. CRTS provide structured programs as an alternative to hospitalization for beneficiaries experiencing an acute psychiatric episode or crises that do not have medical complications requiring nursing care. CRTS offer a range of activities and services that support beneficiaries in their effort to restore, maintain, and apply interpersonal and independent living skills and to access community support systems.

CRTS are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Activities may include (but are not limited to) Assessment, Plan Development, Therapy, Rehabilitation, Collateral, and Crisis Intervention. CRTS are provided in Social Rehabilitation Facilities licensed under the provisions of CCR Title 22, and certified under the provisions of CCR Title 9.

5. Upon Mobile Crisis contact with a client receiving Behavioral Wellness outpatient services, the County Care Coordinator assigned to the client shall be notified immediately in the event of any of the following client indicia: suicidal risk factors, homicidal risk factors, assaultive risk factors, medication side effect complaints or observations, behavioral symptoms presenting possible health problems, or any behavioral symptom that may affect their placement.

6. County shall document services in County Management Information Services (MIS) system.

7. County shall provide reports regarding Mobile Crisis Services to City upon written request. This information shall not include any client identifying information. Reports shall include:
i) Number of Mobile Crisis contacts;
ii) Number of minutes of crisis services provided in the field.

B. County shall have primary responsibility to provide emergency mental health evaluation services described in this Exhibit A to Juvenile clients (up to 18 years of age) in a manner determined by County through a provider(s) authorized by County. County shall respond to suspected psychiatric emergencies presented by individuals under the age of 18 in hospital settings, or in the community when the primary provider is not available.

EXHIBIT A-1
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Exhibit A-1

Page 1 of 2 ends

STATEMENT OF WORK
III. PROGRAM SUMMARY. In addition to the scope of services provided in Exhibit A, the County of Santa Barbara Department of Behavioral Wellness (hereafter, the “Mobile Crisis Services staff”) and the City of Santa Barbara Police Department (“SBPD”) shall provide Mobile Crisis services to all residents in all areas of the City of Santa Barbara through staffing of Mobile Crisis Services staff in conjunction with a SBPD police officer (collectively, “coresponse team”).

IV. PROCEDURES: DEPLOYMENT.

1. The SBPD police officer will wear the uniform of the day designated for Patrol.

2. The Co-response team will operate using SBPD vehicles.

V. PROCEDURES: SAFETY.

A. If during the designated co-response time there is a law enforcement emergency and the SBPD police officer is required to respond, the Mobile Crisis Services staff will first be dropped off at the Santa Barbara Police Department. If, due to the nature of the call, this is not feasible, the Mobile Crisis Services staff will be taken to a safe and secure location.

B. If during a co-response call for service, a criminal act is witnessed or reported and law enforcement action is required, SBPD will provide the next available police officer to the Mobile Crisis Services staff to assist them.

C. If detention of a subject is required, the Mobile Crisis Services staff will remain in the coresponse vehicle and SBPD police officer will act to mitigate harm to both the subject and the Mobile Crisis Services Staff.

D. If while driving, the SBPD police officer witnesses a crime and needs to intervene, the Mobile Crisis Services staff will remain in the co-response vehicle until the scene is secure and a patrol unit is dispatched to relieve the co-response team.

VI. PROCEDURES: DISPATCH.

A. Co-response team will be dispatched to mental health calls for service in the City of Santa Barbara jurisdiction. Calls should be triaged based on acuity and previous contacts.

B. If there is a call for service in Santa Barbara County, an alternative Mobile Crisis Services staff member should be called first via typical protocol. If an alternative Mobile Crisis Services staff member is not available, the co-response team may be utilized with permission from the Santa Barbara Police Department. In the event Mobile Crisis Services staff is operating a co-response with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office at the time a call for services occurs, SBPD shall be the initial responder.

EXHIBIT A-1
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Exhibit A-1

Page 2 of 2 ends

VII. PROCEDURES: 5150 HOLDS.

A. If the co-response team agrees a psychiatric hold is necessary for a subject, the coresponse team will follow Santa Barbara Police Department protocol and either transfer the subject to the nearest emergency room or American Medical Response (AMR) will be called for the transfer.

EXHIBIT B
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Exhibit B

Page 1 of 1 ends

PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Periodic Compensation

1. For services to be rendered under this Contract, City shall pay County the total contract amount, not to exceed $278,111 during the term of the Agreement, per schedule in attached Exhibit B-1.

2. Payment for Mobile Crisis Services shall be based upon the Statement of Work as described in Exhibit A(s).

3. In consideration for County providing Mobile Crisis Services to citizens of Santa Barbara County, including City residents, and County providing reports to City, as described in Exhibit A, City shall pay County the annual contract maximum set forth on Exhibit B-1 during the term of this Agreement.

The fees include an additional $60,000 for two co-response clinicians.

4. In order for payment to be made as set forth in this Exhibit B, section 3 above, County shall submit to City an invoice for services, including two assigned clinicians, for each fiscal year under this Agreement no sooner than July 1 of the beginning of such fiscal year. Payment shall be made by City within thirty (30) days of presentation of invoice.

5. Payment Remittance: All payments should be remitted with a copy of the invoice to the following address:

Santa Barbara County
Department of Behavioral Wellness
Attn: Accounts Receivable
300 N. San Antonio Road Bldg. 3
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
City of Santa Barbara FY 24-26 Mobile Crisis Agreement Exhibit B-1

Page 1 of 1 ends

EXHIBIT B-1
Schedule of Fees
Year Contract Period Annual
Contract Maximum
1 July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 $138,080
2 July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026 $140,031
Total Contract Maximum $278,111

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment to Update the Open Space Element RECOMMENDATION:

That Council initiate a General Plan Amendment to update the Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan in accordance with Government Code §65565.5.

DISCUSSION:

The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term policy document that outlines the community’s vision for future development. The State requires the City’s General Plan to include, at a minimum, the following “elements”: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Air Quality. Open Space, along with the Conservation Element, is one of the mandated elements that identifies areas that provide value in an essentially undeveloped condition and creates a plan to preserve such areas.

The City’s Open Space Element was initially adopted in 1972. In 1982, the City added an optional Parks and Recreation Element1 to the Open Space Element. In 2011, the City added new policies and implementation actions to the Open Space Element. The original text, policies, and implementation actions have otherwise remained the same for over 50 years.

In 2022, Senate Bill 1425 added new Section 65565.5 to the Government Code to require every city and county to review and update its local open-space plan (i.e., Open Space Element) by January 1, 2026. The update requires plans and an action program that address specific issues, including climate resilience and other co-benefits of open space, correlated with the Safety Element. The City’s update to the Open Space Element will include an updated inventory and mapping and will address equitable access to open

1 A Parks and Recreation Element is not required by the state. In 1981, City Council adopted a recommendation to include “appropriate elements” from the Parks and Recreation Facilities and Programming Master Plan into the General Plan.

Agenda Item No. 25
File Code No. 650.06
Council Agenda Report
General Plan Amendment to Update the Open Space Element January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

space and opportunities to preserve, enhance, and expand an integrated network of open space to benefit habitat, recreation, natural resources, historic and tribal resources, water management, and aesthetics.

Updates to the Open Space Element need to be coordinated and consistent with other General Plan Elements such as Land Use Element (2011), Environmental Resources/Conservation Element (2011 and 1979, respectively) and the Safety Element (2013). An update to the Safety Element was initiated by City Council in 2022 because state law requires an update after each revision of the Housing Element or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (both completed in 2023) to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies that were not available during the previous revision of the Safety Element. State law does not mandate a specific date for updating the Safety Element, but staff intends to ensure that the updated Open Space Element is internally consistent with planned updates to the Safety Element as well as with the other General Plan Elements mentioned above that might need minor amendments for internal consistency. Due to the deadline for the Open Space Element update in state legislation, staff anticipates that the Open Space Element General Plan Amendment will occur prior to the Safety Element.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT:

This action does not have a budget/financial impact on the City. It is anticipated that existing budgeted positions in Long Range Planning, with assistance from other departments, can complete the Open Space Element update; however, the use of outside consultants will be reconsidered if key personnel are needed to support other organizational priorities.

PREPARED BY: Rosie Dyste, Project Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: January 14, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Action to Change the Street Tree Species Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Deny the appeal filed by Mr. Richard Closson, Ms. Cheri Rae, and Ms. Emma Brinkman, and uphold the Street Tree Advisory Committee’s recommendation and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s action to change the street tree species designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak; and B. Direct staff to return to Council with a Resolution reflecting the findings and outcome of the appeal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Mr. Richard Closson, Ms. Cheri Rae, and Ms. Emma Brinkman are appealing the Parks and Recreation Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision to change the street tree species designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street from Pinus pinea, Italian stone pine to Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak. On October 3, 2024, the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommended that the Commission approve the change in designation. On October 23, 2024, the Commission voted to approve the species designation change. Mr. Closson, Ms. Rae, and Ms. Brinkman filed a timely appeal as authorized by Santa Barbara Municipal Code (“S.B.M.C”) Section 15.20.170.

DISCUSSION:

I. Brief Historical Background of Italian Stone Pine Trees on E. Anapamu St.

The 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street contain a number of Pinus pinea, Italian stone pine trees that have historical significance to the City. These Italian stone pines, many planted by Dr. Augustus Boyd Doremus in 1908, and Ralph Tallant Stevens in 1929, occur Agenda Item No. 26
File Code No. 570.08
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Action to Change the Street Tree Species Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
January 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

along the identified blocks of East Anapamu from Garden to Milpas Street. Both Dr.

Doremus and Mr. Stevens were notable horticulturalists who made significant contributions to the City’s green infrastructure in the early 20th Century. Many of those original Italian stone pine trees have died and since been replaced by the City. These trees have long been an admired part of the City’s urban forest but have also been a source of public concern with failing trees due to drought, pests, loss of structural roots, and other natural and manmade circumstances.

In 1982, the City Parks Commission1 voted to designate the Italian stone pine tree as the designated street tree species for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. This designation has remained in effect until the Commission’s recent decision to change the designation on October 23, 2024.

On October 7, 1997, fifteen years after the Commission’s street tree designation, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 97-131 (the “Resolution”) thereby giving City Landmark status to the 79 individual mature Italian stone pine trees then in existence that were originally planted by Dr. Doremus and Mr. Stevens, naming them the “Doremus Pine Trees” (Attachment 1).

II. Background of the Street Tree Master Plan – Street Tree Designation Listing
Section 15.20.030 of the S.B.M.C. states that all trees within a parkway strip shall be planted and maintained according to the Street Tree Master Plan (“Master Plan”) adopted by City Council. The Master Plan was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 3863 in 1977. The Master Plan is a comprehensive document for the preservation, maintenance, and planting of trees located within the public right-of-way. An official Street Tree Designation List is an appendix of the plan. The Street Tree Designation List identifies either a specific species of tree or, in some cases, multiple species, for use on streets or street segments (blocks) throughout the City. The Street Tree Designation List provides a framework to guide tree-planting decisions, with a focus on creating a welcoming neighborhood aesthetic, reducing tree related infrastructure conflicts, maximizing gained environmental benefits, and promoting species diversity.

As outlined in the S.B.M.C., the Parks and Recreation Director administers the Master Plan and, with the approval of the Commission, has the authority to amend or add to the Master Plan at any time that circumstances make such an amendment or addition advisable. Since the Street Tree Designation List is part of the Master Plan, amendments or changes require review and approval by the Commission. 1 Now titled the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Action to Change the Street Tree Species Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
January 14, 2025

Page 3 ends

III. Need for Review of the Existing Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street
In response to the failure of two mature Italian stone pines on East Anapamu Street that occurred on March 29 and March 30, 2024, staff performed a risk assessment of all remaining Italian stone pines in that location. As part of the assessment, staff expedited three trees for removal due to significant defects and identified another five trees categorized as high risk, also requiring removal. The project involved extensive public outreach, including presentations to both the Historic Landmarks and Parks and Recreation Commissions (Attachment 2).

The presentations and outreach materials outlined the challenges associated with the Italian stone pines, expectations for the remaining trees, and the need to replant the street with new trees. During these meetings, staff shared a schedule that included key meetings to review the existing street tree species designation Pinus pinea, Italian stone pine, and discuss whether it made practical sense to continue the use of this species or change the existing designation to a different species of tree given the known challenges with the Italian stone pines.

IV. Street Tree Advisory Committee Review
The Street Tree Advisory Committee (Committee) reviewed the existing designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street on August 1, 2024, and again on October 3, 2024. This review included public comment. During the reviews, members discussed the existing designation of Italian stone pine, including the challenges associated with the species and whether it made practical sense to continue its use. In addition to the existing designation, the Committee evaluated several other species. In total, the Committee evaluated 17 species as possible designation changes. Of the species discussed, the Committee favored Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak. During the evaluation of the coast live oak, the Committee commented that the tree was well suited to the area as a native tree, was highly adaptable to various sized planting locations, could provide a similar streetscape aesthetic over time, and provided significant wildlife habitat. Additional discussion took place regarding co-designating both trees, but after reviewing, the Committee agreed that due to the known issues with the Italian stone pine, its continued use did not make practical sense.

After review, the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommended changing the existing designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street from Pinus pinea, Italian stone pine, to Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak (Attachment 4).

V. Parks and Recreation Commission Review
On October 23, 2024, the Commission reviewed the Street Tree Advisory Committee’s recommendation (Attachment 5) to change the species designation for the 300 – 800 Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Action to Change the Street Tree Species Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
January 14, 2025

Page 4 ends

blocks of East Anapamu Street. The Commission received both written and oral comments during the review of this item. The Committee discussed the recommendation, highlighting the known challenges that existed with the existing designation of Italian stone pines. There was consensus amongst the members that despite the history of the Italian stone pines on the street that it was important to make informed decisions to guide future plantings and that the native coast live oak was better suited for replanting on the street.

After review, the Commission voted (4/0) to concur with the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommendation and approve changing the designation from Pinus pinea, Italian stone pine to Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street (Attachment 6).

VI. Appeal of Parks and Recreation Commission Decision
The Commission’s decision was timely appealed by Appellants to the City Council as authorized by Santa Barbara Municipal Code 15.20.170 (Attachment 7). Appellants submitted an Addendum to the Appeal on November 4, 2024, which is also included in Attachment 7.

A. Issues on Appeal

1. The Parks and Recreation Commission’s decision to change the street tree designation for the 300 – 800 Blocks of East Anapamu Street is not causing the de-landmarking or revocation of the Doremus Pine Trees landmark.

It is Appellants’ position that the Parks and Recreation Commission lacks the requisite authority to “de-landmark” the tree species Pinus pinea for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. The Appellants contend that by changing the street tree species designation, the Parks and Recreation Commission is effectively “de-landmarking” the existing landmarked trees, which only City Council has authorization to do. Appellants’ argument, however, misinterprets the language of the Resolution adopted by City Council in 1997 when granting landmark status to the 79 individual Italian stone pine trees. Twenty -seven years after the adoption of the Resolution, staff cannot rely on memories of community members to determine what the Doremus Pine Trees city landmark applies to and instead must rely on what was specifically written and adopted by the City Council in 1997. The language of the Resolution is the true marker of the collective legislative intent at the time and does not exclude the voice of the majority.

The plain language of the Resolution clearly designates Doremus Pine Trees landmark status to only the 79 individual trees with historic significance that remained of the unique Italian stone pine trees planted by Dr. Doremus and Mr. Stevens, all of which were still in existence at the time of adoption of the Resolution. On the first page of their Appeal Letter, Appellants incorrectly state, “[t]hose blocks had previously been Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Action to Change the Street Tree Species Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
January 14, 2025

Page 5 ends

designated to have only the species, Pinus pinea, as the street tree by the Commission in 1982 and those trees (that species) had been protected by landmark status by City Council Resolution 97-131 in 1997.” 2
Staff examined the collective legislative intent of the City Council when adopting the Resolution to determine whether only these specific trees were part of the landmark, or instead, if City Council intended that the species, the blocks, or a physical feature was to have the Doremus Pine Trees City Landmark status. After a thorough review of the language of the Resolution and the accompanying exhibits, staff concluded that City Council’s intent was to give City Landmark status only to the mature Italian stone pine trees with historical significance (the original remaining 79 mature Italian stone pine trees planted by Dr. Doremus and Mr. Stevens) still in existence at the time of adoption in 1997.

In staff’s analysis, several key points were identified that spoke to the specific legislative intent of City Council when adopting the Resolution to recognize only the 79 originally planted Italian stone pine trees with historic significance as part of the Doremus Pine Tree City Landmark. These points are summarized to include: (1) the Resolution’s use of the term “mature” and the use of the specific words “79 Individual Trees” in the title, Exhibit A, and B to describe the 79 individual landmarked Italian stone pine trees rather than a blanket use of the Italian stone pine species itself in the location; (2) the inclusion of a lengthy discussion in Exhibit B about the historic significance of the 79 subject trees remaining at adoption that were originally planted by Dr. Doremus and Mr.

Stevens in 1908 and 1929, respectively; (3) the separate treatment and discussion in Exhibit B of the 10-15 Italian stone pine sapling replacement trees planted by the City after the original Italian stone pine trees’ demise that were discussed separate and apart from the remaining 79 trees that were designated as the Doremus Pine Tree City Landmark3; and (4) the inclusion of the 63 specific APN’s4 for individual trees rather than a designation of specific street blocks, the species itself, the parkways, or the tree wells.

It is staff’s contention that the Resolution’s mention of the “300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street” was included to provide a general location and had City Council intended the species itself or the particular blocks to be the subject of the Doremus Pine Trees landmark as Appellants’ argue, the Resolution would not have been so specific as to repeatedly mention the remaining 79 individual original mature trees in the title and both Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the Resolution, include A.P.N’s for each specific tree, speak of the 10-15 original trees that were lost and replaced by Italian stone pine saplings, which were not included in the count of 79 Italian stone pines.5 2 See Attachment 7, Appeal Letter p. 1, first paragraph. 3 See Attachment 1, p. 5 of 6, bottom of second paragraph. 4 Today, many of the original APN’s listed in the Resolution’s Exhibit A have changed and many of the original Italian stone pine trees have been removed and replaced with young Italian stone pine trees. Because only 63 unique APN’s are listed on Exhibit A, it can be inferred that at the time of the Resolution adoption many APN’s contained multiple Italian stone pine trees. This is the case today as well with some of the APN’s having up to five Italian stone pine trees planted in each. 5 See Attachment 1.

Page 6 ends

Appellants’ own observations included on Page 4 of their appeal supports staff’s contention by stating “[a]s we report, of the 79 trees that were designated landmarks in 1997 with their accompanying Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), there are now 25 APNs with no tree, a net loss of 32% (25/79).”(emphasis added).6 Similarly, Appellants recognize that only these 79 specific trees were landmarked by stating “[a]pproximately nine decades after the initial planting, the remaining 79 trees on those combined six blocks were landmarked in 1997 by the Santa Barbara City Council” (emphasis added).7
Therefore, contradictory to Appellant’s position that the Italian stone pine species and the street blocks were given Doremus Pine Trees City Landmark status, it was only the 79 Italian stone pines remaining in 1997 of the approximately 94 trees originally planted by Dr. Doremus and Mr. Stevens that have landmark status and the protections provided by such a designation.8

2. Contrary to the text of the Resolution, Appellants’ assert that the Doremus Pine Trees must be replaced with their like species.
9 Again, staff must look to the plain language of the Resolution to determine whether replacement trees are given city landmark status or historic tree status.

Accordingly, staff found that City Council did not designate past, current, or future replacement trees as part of the Doremus Pine Trees landmark, nor did City Council declare replacement trees to have historic tree status. The Resolution does not address replacement trees at all outside of mentioning the 10-15 sapling replacement trees that were not included in the count of 79 trees to be landmarked and one mention in Exhibit B’s historical background regarding the City Parks Commission’s 1982 designation of the Italian stone pine as the replacement tree for future parkway plantings in the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street.

Though the Resolution mentions the 1982 designation, the Resolution does not go as far as to require the 1982 Italian stone pine designation remain in perpetuity or any length of time for that matter. Similarly, the Resolution did not designate subsequently planted trees as part of the Doremus Pine Trees landmark nor as Historic Trees.

Therefore, it follows that when a landmarked Doremus Pine Tree dies or fails, any replacement trees must be in line with the Master Plan’s street tree designation.10

3. All parkways within the 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu, excepting any Doremus Pine Trees landmarked tree, are to be planted and maintained according to the Master Plan.
6 See Attachment 7 p.4 of 79, first paragraph.
7 See Attachment 7, p. 4 of 79, last paragraph.
8 Approximate number 94 calculated by adding the 79 remaining trees in 1997 with the (up to) 15 saplings mentioned in the Resolution’s Exhibit B that were planted by the City after the demise of the original trees. 9 See Attachment 7, cover page “(. . .) and replacement with their like species – the incremental effect of redesignation is the eventual elimination of the landmarked species, thereby revoking the City Council’s resolution.” 10S.B.M.C. §15.20.030.

Page 7 ends

When circumstances arise that make a change in street tree designation advisable then, with the approval of the Commission, the Parks and Recreation Director has the authority to amend or add to the Master Plan at any time.11 Prior to the Commission’s October 23, 2024 designation change, the street tree designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu was Pinus pinea. On October 3, 2024, the Street Tree Advisory Committee made the recommendation to the Commission that the street tree species be changed for the 300 – 800 blocks due to the reasons more thoroughly discussed in Attachments 2 through 6. On October 23, 2024, the Commission, acting within their duties pursuant to the S.B.M.C., voted unanimously to change the species designation to coast live oak.

For the reasons detailed above, all parkways of the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street are subject to the Master Plan with exception to any remaining Doremus Pine Trees, which receive the protections provided by landmark status.

B. Issues Unrelated to the Issues on Appeal but nonetheless included in the Appellants’ Appeal Brief

1. Appellants discussion of their investigation and recommendations for the Italian stone pine trees’ management is not an appealable action as it is a separate issue from the Commission’s decision to change the street tree designation.

Appellants have included in their appeal their personally conducted investigation of the current status of the Italian stone pines located on the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street along with their recommendations for improvement of the City’s management of these trees. This issue, however, is not an appealable action. The Commission’s approval of a change in street tree designation affects future trees planted in the parkways located in the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street, not the Doremus Pine Trees City Landmark trees nor the Italian stone pine street trees located on those blocks. The 46 remaining Italian stone pine trees will remain and be cared for.12

2. Application of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

In addition to the appeal of the Commission’s vote to change the street tree species for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street, Appellants submitted an addendum regarding staff’s application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the Parks and Recreation Department’s past maintenance activities, including tree removals (addendum included with Attachment 7).

The Italian stone pines removed within the 300 – 800 block of East Anapamu Street have all been either dead, dying, or in a hazardous state to public safety. Trees left 11 S.B.M.C. §15.20.030
12 See Attachment 6, P. 3, end of first paragraph, “[s]he also iterated that the 46 trees still standing will remain and be cared for.” Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Action to Change the Street Tree Species Designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
January 14, 2025

Page 8 ends

in these conditions could result in possible bodily harm and/or property damage. The removal of individual trees in this condition are statutorily exempt from CEQA under the Emergency Project exemption, CEQA guidelines Section 15269. The Emergency Project exemption applies to specific actions that are necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This determination is made on a case-by-case basis depending on the condition of the subject tree.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the following categorical exemptions:

1. CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land): This exemption applies to minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. The proposed action only involves a change to the species designation, resulting in a minor alteration to environmental conditions. The proposed action would not result in physical removal or alterations to existing mature trees or major construction.

2. CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 (Action by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources): This exemption applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The proposed action would allow for the planting of new coast live oak trees in accordance with the revised Street Tree Master Plan and SBMC 15.20.030. The proposed action is a change in the designation of street trees to a species better suited to the local environment, as coast live oak trees are native to the area and provide environmental benefits including habitat for wildlife.

RECOMMENDATION:

In consideration of the proposed change in species designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street, the Commission considered all relevant information including S.B.M.C. Chapter 15.20 and specifically § 15.20.030 described above and Resolution Number 97-131.

The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that City Council deny the appeal filed by Mr. Richard Closson, Ms. Cheri Rae, and Ms. Emma Brinkman and uphold the Parks and Recreation Commission’s action to change the street tree species designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak.

Page 9 ends

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 97-131

2. Staff Report – East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines

3. Staff Report – Authority to Modify Tree Species Designation

4. Street Tree Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, October 3, 2024

5. Parks and Recreation Commission Report, October 23, 2024

6. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes, October 23, 2024

7. Appeal Letter, Appeal Brief, and Addendum
PREPARED BY: Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Superintendent
SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
97-061� 3
17-aro, .s�s Recoraed
Rec Fee
Total
.00
. 00
Official Records
County of
Santa Barbara
Kenneth A Pettit
Recorder
8:18am 15-0ct-97 PUBL cc 7
RESOLUTION NO. 97-131

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA DESIGNATING THE ROWS OF MATURE
ITALIAN STONE PINE TREES (Pinus pinea) ALONG

BOTH SIDES OF EAST ANAPAMU STREET FROM THE
300 BLOCK TO THE 800 BLOCK (79 INDIVIDUAL

TREES) AS A CITY LANDMARK CALLED THE DOREMUS

PINE TREES

NO FEE PER
C!(W. r:ooE 6103
WHEREAS, on July 23, 1997, the Historic Landmarks Commission adopted a resolution of intention to begin the Landmark designation process; and
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Analyst has determined a California Environmental Quality Act Categorical Exemption for the proposed designation; and
WHEREAS, The Historic Landmarks Commission held a public hearing on August 6, 1997, during which hearing comments were invited on the proposed designation and no persons spoke in opposition to the designation; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 1997, the City Council received a recommendation from the Historic Landmarks Commission to designate the Italian Stone Pine trees as a City Landmark; and WHEREAS, Section 22.22.050 of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Barbara states that the City Council may designate as a Landmark any structure, natural feature, site or area having historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic significance by adopting a resolution of designation within ninety (90) days following receipt of a recommendation from the Historic Landmarks Commission; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA THAT:
a. The Italian Stone Pine trees, located on both sides of East Anapamu street from the 300 block to the 800
block, as shown on the site plan attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorForated herein, are designated as a
city Landmark called the Doremus Pine Trees.

I/J-'7- q"7
Attachment 1
b. The City Council finds that the Italian Stone Pine
trees meet the following criteria listed in Section
22 . 22.040 of the Municipal Code:
1) Their character, interest and value as a
significant part of the heritage of the City;
2) Their identification with a person, Or. Augustus
Boyd Doremus, who significantly contributed to the
culture and development of the city through his
horticultural work;
3) Their identification as the creation, work and
design of Dr. Doremus, whose effort has
significantly influenced the heritage of the city;
4) Their unique location and singular physical
characteristics representing an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.
5) Their integrity as a natural environment that
strongly contributes to the well-being of the
people of the City.

2. These findings are based on historic and cultural
significance of facts presented in Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

3. The City Clerk shall cause this Resolution, upon
adoption, to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder
of the County of Santa Barbara pursuant to Santa
Barbara Municipal Code Section 22.22.055 .

Adopted: October 7, 1997

EXHIBIT A
ResoJ.ution No. 97- 1
79 Italian Stone Pine Trees
· on Anapamu Street
1000 0
Italian Stone Pine Tree

PEABODY
STADIUM •
1000
Proposed For Designation as Landmark Trees

Page 3 ends

SANTA BARBARA

HIGH SCHOOL
2000 Feet
N
s
EXHIBIT "A" - Page two
RESOLU~ION NO. 97-131
APNs FOR STONE PINE TREES:
29-131-16
29-131-15
29-131-13
29-133-19
29-133-18
29-133-17
29-133-16
29-133-15
29-133-14
29-133-13
29-133-12
29-133-11
29-141-14
29-141-13
29-141-36
29-141-10
29-142-19
29-142-20
29-015-26
29-015-25
29-015-24
29-015 - 23
29-015-22
29-015 -3 9
29-015-20
29-015-19
29-015-18
29-015-17
29-015-40
29-015-44
29-015-20
29-171-01
29-171-02
29-171-04
29-171-06
29-171-07
29-171-08
29-171-09
29-171-17
29-171-11
29-173-02
29-173-03
29-173-04
29-173-05
29-173-06
29-173-07
29-173-08
29-173-09
29-181-01
29-181-02
29-181-20
29-181-05
29-181-06
29-181-07
29-181 - 0 9
29-181-24
29-191-01
29 - 192-01
29-192-02
29 - 192-03
29-192-04
29-192-05
29-192-07
29-192-08

Page 4 of 6 ends

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

EXHIBIT B
Resolution No. 97-131
The attractive rows of Stone Pine trees which create an arching canopy over East Anapamu Street were planted in 1908 by one of Santa Barbara's foremost amateur gardeners, Dr. Augustus Boyd Doremus. Also known as Italian Stone Pines or Umbrella Pines, the flat-topped, spreading trees are approximately sixty feet tall and take their name from the edible nut which has an exceedingly hard (stone-like) shell. They are native to the Mediterranean region and the seeds for the subject trees were sent to Santa Barbara from Italy by Dr. Doremus' brother, Edward Peter. They were sprouted in the nursery of Dr. Francesco Franceschi (aka Emanuele Orazio Fenzi, 1843-1924), which contributed many new and unusual plant species to the city, and originally planted along East Anapamu from Milpas to Olive Street.

East Anapamu Street received curbs and gutters, but no
paving, in 1921. Sporadic sidewalk installation adjacent to residential lots also developed at this time. Afterward, most of the street and sidewalk paving occurred without documentation.

In 1929, the rows of trees were extended westwardly along East Anapamu to Garden Street by Ralph Stevens who was the first salaried Superintendent of City Parks from 1919 until 1921 .

Originally set back a considerable distance from the narrow dirt road that was Anapamu Street in 19.08, today the street pavement reaches the base of the trees. The trees' roots were first pruned in 1943 and 1953 prior to street improvements. All street and sidewalk pavement was repaired or replaced as necessary in 1968. As many as ten or fifteen of the Stone Pine Trees have been lost to causes such as drought, age and developmental trauma, but 79 trees remain to provide an attractively uniform appearance and shading for the neighborhood. Italian Stone Pine saplings have been planted by the Ci ty in the spaces vacated by the lost trees.

Dr. Doremus was born in Louisiana in 1842 and returned to his mother's place of origin in Nantes, France before and after his service in the Civil War. He was trained and licensed as a dentist in Baltimore, Maryland and built a dental practice among aristocratic Europeans along the French Riviera. He acquired property in Santa Barbara and Montecito in the 1880s and eventually settled his family at 601 East Anapamu Street (now Alta Vista Road) in a home surrounded by extensive gardens. From 1882 until his death in 1937, he was one of the foremost ornamental gardening activists in Santa Barbara, and volunteered his time as the City's first Park Superintendent. From 1902 until 1920, he was President of the City Park Commission and from 1920 until 1924 he was President of the Garden Club of Santa Barbara and Montecito.

Page 5 of 6 ends

In both his official and unofficial capacities, Doremus superintended the design and planting of much of the City's ornamental gardens and plantings, and placed many specimens with his own hands. His home was surrounded by extensive gardens where he and his family gave popular lawn parties.

Stone Pine trees are not uncommon in Santa Barbara. Others can be seen in the eastern part of Mackenzie Park where they were planted in 1961. One stands at the entrance to Cottage Hospital and a very large specimen lives at 2685 Glendessary Lane.

Outside Santa Barbara another tandem row of 120 Italian Stone Pines was planted in the City of Lompoc along both sides of H Street during the early 1930s. The City of Lompoc originally wanted Monterey pine trees for this site, and since the name of the person who planted the Stone Pines here remains unknown, the possibility exists that these trees were also planted by Dr .

Doremus .

In 19 64, a resident at 403 East ~..napamu asked for relief from the ten foot setback requirements but was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission with the support of the Park Commission. Builder William Horack proposed construction of an apartment building at Anapamu and Laguna, but was denied his request for a variance in order to save the Stone Pine trees.

Neighbors and other citizens obj ected to the proposal because they felt that the trees would be "butchered11 if buildings were permitted to be constructed within ten feet of the property line.

In 19 82, the City Parks Commission offi cially d esigned the Italian Stone Pine as the tree species for all future replaceme nt parkway planting in the 300-800 blocks of East F..napamu Street.

That year, the City pruned the roots and tops of the trees according to the City Arborist's specifications. Also in 1982, all concrete curbs and gutters and driveway aprons were replaced as part of a $400,000 public works street improvement project a long East Anapamu . In the fall of 1986, all badly damaged sidewalks in the subject blocks were replaced by the crews of the City Streets Di vision, and the trees were pruned again.

Page 6 of 6 ends

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEPHONE (805) 564-5309
FAX (805) 564-5556
.. '"'r •• , -: ~ .. ·--.
_/~~~)l.,;::t . .: ·,. . ~· ... :-:. : ·'· -~ -· •• ""'~- ••. f :\_ · ·l·,1 . .• '11 -~ 'rf ~L:-,,.,.:. ·. :... . ' ~-,},/ ~ , .. :.-·• : • : •. :·. .. . • ... -1 ,. ·o· . , - . . "" - .... -. -~ .. : . .-:i,.J : ' .-·-· - It • • • 1! . ' ,.f'. 1 • , 1 · •• \ -- , 'fl!-:) •'~\• •:·: r • - ... :.- • .-~ •• :£:~ll - I , - ,. •'t •• 1,,', ,','I • - .. , l ' I ' • .,., - - :' : • '"\ I r... _, I ' , • ·_.t;:, '·'·· • · ~-,;:'-rt':,:~ I! . I 1 ·11 ~ "'.i" fl !'$-,:.:' .·' · 11J't · . ,.., I l :--::~ • ' ·, - J Ii·· i ~ : ·: •. I,,'/ ' ._ I - J.,. • :. ... ... ,,... . • ~ . • , ~. ·-•~.L.-t..v,,,,__. _ Ii'-_ -: · '\.r ·, • ... -~· - ·- , ... ! STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
)
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
)

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA )

CITY HALL

DE LA GUERRA PLAZA
POST OFFICE BOX 1990
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93102-1990
I, DOROTHY JONES, Deputy City Clerk in and for the City of Santa Barbara, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that attached is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 97-131, which was duly and regularly adopted by the said Council of the City of Santa Barbara at a regular meeting held on October 7, 1997.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of said City to be witnessed and affixed this 7th day of October, 1997.

City of Santa Barbara
Parks and Recreation Department

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA DATE: July 17, 2024
TO: Historic Landmarks Commission
FROM: Parks Division, Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
RECOMMENDATION: That the Historic Landmarks Commission receive a presentation on the East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines and discuss options and opportunities for replanting East Anapamu Street.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this staff report is to provide a brief history of the Italian Stone Pines that line the 300-800 blocks of East Anapamu Street, review the challenges with maintaining the trees through many decades of urban development including installation and maintenance of paving, sidewalks, building infrastructure, and underground utilities, the current conditions of the trees, including recent removals necessary for public safety, and opportunities for replanting the street within a historical horticultural context.

BACKGROUND:

The Italian Stone Pines (stone pines) that line the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street have long been an admired part of Santa Barbara’s horticultural heritage. Key contributors at the turn of the 20th century provided the foundation for what would become one of the city’s most unique and special streetscapes as well as its diverse and extensive urban forest. It began in 1908, when Dr. Augustus Boyd Doremus, a passionate horticulturist and civic beautification advocate, planted the first stone pines along the 500 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. Several years later, in 1929, Ralph Stevens, the first salaried Parks Superintendent, planted the 300-400 blocks of East Anapamu Street.

Over the decades, as the trees matured, they formed a distinctive canopy arching over the street.

Since the stone pines along East Anapamu Street reflect a specific period of Santa Barbara’s horticultural heritage and urban development, a movement to recognize the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu resulted in Resolution Number 97-131, adopted by City Council on October 7, 1997. The adoption of the resolution designated all the stone Attachment 2
Historic Landmarks Commission
Staff Report
East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
July 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

pine trees from the 300 to 800 blocks of East Anapamu a City Landmark called the Doremus Pine Trees. At that time, there were 79 Italian stone pines. Due to incomplete records of the number of stone pines planted by Dr Doremus and Ralph Stevens, it is not known how many of the 79 trees designated in 1997 were original plantings. It is anticipated that the designation includes original trees and trees that were planted in subsequent years.

DISCUSSION:

Tree Planting and Maintenance within an Urban Streetscape Context East Anapamu Street has undergone significant development since the first plantings of the Doremus Stone Pines. This includes the construction of roads, housing, Santa Barbara High School, the Santa Barbara County Bowl, as well as the installation of underground, street level and above ground infrastructure. Such development, along with the paving of the street and development of sidewalks, both reduced the available space for stone pines and contributed to less-than-ideal long-term growing conditions. Due to the expansive root structure of the trees, which require regular sidewalk and street repairs, the consistent cutting of each tree’s root system undermines tree health and stability. Santa Barbara’s two extensive drought cycles have also been particularly challenging for many tree species with pine trees suffering to the largest extent. For many years, the City’s Urban Forest team provided supplemental water to the stone pines in the hope of extending tree life.

Given these conditions, there have been numerous tree failures since the designation of the stone pines in 1997. Although City records regarding tree loss and replanting are not complete, at least 23 trees have been removed over the last several decades. At the beginning of 2024, there were 56 stone pines along the 300-800 blocks of East Anapamu.

It is estimated that 33 of the 56 are replacement trees. These trees are considerably smaller than those estimated to be part of the original plantings. Due to their size, it is further estimated that 8 trees were planted by Dr. Doremus and 15 can be associated with Parks Superintendent Ralph Stevens.

Tree failures, Removals, and Risk Assessment
As a result of winter storms including significant rain on March 29 and March 30, 2024, the City’s Urban Forestry team responded to two significant stone pine failures along East Anapamu and proactively removed an additional three trees after evaluations revealed conditions that warranted expedited removal for public safety. In advance of that work commencing, On March 19, April 10, and April 19, Forestry staff provided detailed notes to the City’s Historian, for the three trees prioritized for expedited removal to document the removals and rationale supporting their removal.

Historic Landmarks Commission
Staff Report
East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
July 17, 2024

Page 3 ends

In response to the tree failures, the Urban Forestry team subsequently initiated a full risk assessment of all the remaining 51 stone pines following current industry standards set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture’s Tree Risk Assessment Qualification.

This assessment involves a detailed review of each tree, its health, potential for failure, and consequences of full or partial failure.

The assessment identified five additional trees with conditions that warranted complete removal to protect public safety. While there are several complicating factors with each of these trees, the primary driver of this decision was extensive root decay related to root injury from repairs to the roads and hardscape over the last several decades. The additional trees identified for removal had decay within the visible root zone, indicating that very little, or none, of each tree’s primary structural root zone remained Prior to the planned removals, on May 20, 2024, the Parks and Recreation Department provided a detailed memo to City Council, the Historic Landmarks Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Street Tree Advisory Committee (please refer to attachment 1). In addition, on May 21, 2024, the Department sent mailers to all residents on Anapamu Street, developed a project webpage, placed informational signs on the street, and issued a press release. Forestry staff conducted four of five tree removals during the first and second weeks of June. Because a bird survey conducted in advance of the removals identified an active bird nest, the remaining tree will be removed during the month of July when the birds are no longer present.

Municipal Code Sections Governing Santa Barbara’s trees.

Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) 15.20 – Tree Planting and Maintenance, referred to as the "Street Tree Ordinance of the City of Santa Barbara” provides regulatory guidance for street trees, and SBMC 15.24 - Preservation of Trees, referred to as the "Tree Preservation Ordinance of the City of Santa Barbara" regulates private setback and parking lot trees, as well as trees on an approved plan or a tree designated as an historic or specimen tree by the City Council.

Key aspects of the Municipal Code guide decision making for the designation and removal of street, park and private trees. SBMC 15.20.180 provides the process for designating trees as historic. SBMC 15.20.050 provides the Parks and Recreation Director or designee with authority to remove City trees from public areas without formal review if necessary for public safety. SBMC 15.24.030 also allows for the removal of a tree without a permit if a tree is so weakened by age, disease, storm, fire, or any injury so as to cause imminent danger to persons or property.

SBMC 15.24.055 addresses private trees under the purview of the Historic Landmarks Commission, focusing on those within the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District or the Brinkerhoff Landmark District.

Historic Landmarks Commission
Staff Report
East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
July 17, 2024

Page 4 ends

SBMC 15.24.060 outlines the application process for the removal of historic or specimen trees, requiring review by the Street Tree Advisory Committee and final approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Both sections 15.24.055 and 15.24.060 outline the process for a tree owner to apply to have a healthy historic tree or a healthy tree in a historic district removed. If a public improvement or any other project in the future would require the removal of a healthy stone pine on East Anapamu, its review would occur through the Street Tree Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission as outlined in SBMC 15.24.060.

Both private residents and City departments are required to comply with requirements under SBMC 15.24.060.

Over the years, the Parks and Recreation Department has only removed stone pines due to failure and safety concerns. The most recent stone pine removals in March as well as June were completed in response to complete failure as well as determined to be necessary for public safety. Under these circumstances, per SBMC 15.20.050, no formal review is required.

Long Term Outlook for Existing Trees
The City’s Urban Forestry team will continue to monitor the remaining 46 stone pines, providing an assessment occurring every two years to evaluate stress and structural integrity of the existing trees. Given the significant amount of root pruning that has occurred over the years, continued decline of the remaining mature trees can be expected. Despite a desire to improve their health, the damage is uncorrectable and there are no interventions that would improve their health in the long term.

Tree roots provide three primary functions: anchorage, storage, and transport of water and nutrients. Large mature trees can produce only small fibrous roots which are the roots that work to uptake water and nutrients. Mature trees do not have the ability to produce primary structural roots which means that as the structural roots are damaged through infrastructure improvements and repair, the trees cannot recover lost structural integrity. The management of the mature Italian stone pones is now a balancing act between managing risk and preserving this unique historical resource for as long as possible.

In addition to the significant challenges and stress caused by root pruning over the years, root and above-ground tissue samples (wood and needles) submitted to a plant diagnostic laboratory in January and March 2024, came back positive for Phytopthora, a root rot pathogen. This fungal pathogen kills a tree’s roots, first infecting small fibrous feeder roots before moving into larger roots of the tree. Infected feeder roots impact the tree’s ability to uptake water and nutrients, leading to overall decline. Given the pathogen’s ability to easily spread from one location to another, it is likely present in all parkways within the 300-800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. Tree species have varying Historic Landmarks Commission
Staff Report
East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
July 17, 2024

Page 5 ends

levels of sensitivity to Phytopthora, and the stone pines have proven to be more impacted than some other tree species.

Testing also identified Diplodia tip blight within the canopies of tested trees. This fungal pathogen causes the decline and death of portions of the tree canopy over time. This easily spread pathogen is likely present in the canopies of all trees displaying some level of decline.

All tree problems are caused by something biotic or abiotic in nature. Tree mortality usually results from a combination of factors, typically identified as primary and secondary causes. Primary causes are those that create significant stress. For the stone pines, significant root pruning has been the primary cause of chronic stress. Additionally, the two prolonged periods of drought have also had an impact. These physiological events lead to declines in tree vigor, and when vigor drops, it allows secondary issues to take effect. In the case of the stone pines on East Anapamu, both Phytophthora and Diplodia are considered secondary issues. When these factors accumulate and become overwhelming, they can push the balance unfavorably, resulting in the deterioration and eventual loss of the trees. It highlights the delicate balance required to maintain a healthy urban forest amidst various challenges.

With the potential for all existing and new stone pines to grow to a large enough size where surrounding hardscape can be disrupted, requiring repair and root pruning, it could lead to stress levels where these pathogens continue to gain a foothold and lead to an accelerated decline of the trees. With continually changing climates, water availability, and the presence of multiple pathogens it remains unclear if this species can still be successful on the street. Even in the case of smaller trees, there are examples of infrastructure conflict along the street, requiring sidewalk repair.

Re-Establishing Canopy Cover
Due to the loss of trees on East Anapamu over the past 45 years, there is a great need to plant new trees. There are several key considerations for the replanting of the street.

Determining which species or combination of species are most suitable for repopulating the street will be a critical component. There are a variety of considerations for and against the continued use of stone pines. The beauty, canopy cover, and historic use of stone pines on the street are several of the benefits. Despite known challenges with pathogens and changes in local climate there are on-street examples of younger trees showing resilience and even success.

Conversely, the "right tree, right place" principle emphasizes selecting the appropriate species for a given location to maximize benefits and minimize negative impacts. Given the ongoing issues with stone pines, including disruptions to the surrounding roadway and hardscape, it may be that the species does not align well with this fundamental tree planting principle.

Historic Landmarks Commission
Staff Report
East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
July 17, 2024

Page 6 ends

Based on a recent site survey, most of the 40 vacant tree planting locations spanning the 300–800 blocks have parkways that are six feet wide, though their lengths vary. Some sections of the street have smaller parkways, slightly less than four feet wide, also varying in length.

While sources suggest that parkways between four to seven feet are adequate for planting stone pines, many examples show that these trees can grow to a size that disrupts surrounding roads and hardscapes. This often leads to a cycle of root pruning and unnecessary stress on street trees. Additionally, the southeastern side of the street has overhead utility lines which create canopy conflict and leads to continuous trimming of stone pine that impacts the aesthetics of the tree and can contribute to structural imbalance.

Species Selection in the City of Santa Barbara
SBMC Section 15.20.030 provides that all trees within a parkway strip shall be planted and maintained according to the Street Tree Master Plan (Master Plan) adopted by City Council. The initial, and still current, Master Plan, was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 3863 in 1977. The Master Plan is a comprehensive document for the preservation, maintenance, and planting of trees located within the public right-of-way. An official Street Tree Designation List is an appendix of the plan. The Street Tree Designation List identifies either a specific species of tree or, in some cases, multiple species for use on streets or street segments (blocks) throughout the city. The Street Tree Designation List provides a framework to guide tree-planting decisions, with a focus on creating a welcoming neighborhood aesthetic, reducing tree related infrastructure conflicts, maximizing gained environmental benefits, and promoting species diversity citywide.

The Parks and Recreation Director administers the Master Plan and, with the approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission, has the authority to amend or add to the Plan at any time that circumstances make such an amendment or addition advisable. Since the Street Tree Designation List is part of the Master Plan, amendments or changes require review and approval by the Commission.

In 1982, the Parks and Recreation Commission changed the existing designation to the Italian stone pine to be the designated species for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. This designation remains in place to this day. The question remains as to whether the existing designation of Italian stone pine is still appropriate. Resolution No. 97-131 designates each tree that existed along this stretch of East Anapamu in 1997 as a historic landmark but it does not guide the direction of future plantings along the street. If a change in species is desired, the proposed change would be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Historic Landmarks Commission
Staff Report
East Anapamu Italian Stone Pines
July 17, 2024

Page 7 ends

NEXT STEPS:

The Parks and Recreation Department is currently seeking input from the Historic Landmarks Commission. On August 1, 2024, staff plan to present a report and seek input from the Street Tree Advisory Committee for a new or modified species designation. On July 24, 2024, staff will provide the Parks and Recreation Commission with an overview of current condition of existing trees, short and long-term expectations for the existing trees, discuss the need to replant East Anapamu and consider the right tree for the street given the parkway sizes, adjacent development, and infrastructure conflicts. Follow-up meetings will occur on September 5th with the Street Tree Advisory Committee to further review modified or new species designations. On September 26th the Parks and Recreation Commission will review and act if the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommends a designation change. The goal is to make sound decisions that will ensure the success of tree canopy cover for the next several generations with an aim to replant the vacant tree wells along East Anapamu in early 2025.

PREPARED BY: Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Superintendent
SUBMITTED BY: Jazmin LeBlanc, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director City of Santa Barbara
Parks and Recreation Department
Memorandum
DATE:

TO: Street Tree Advisory Committee
FROM: Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Superintendent
SUBJECT: 300 – 800 East Anapamu Street – Species Designation Review Forestry staff are requesting a review of the current species designation for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. The current species designation is Pinus pinea, Italian stone pine. The existing designation occurred in 1982.

Historical Landmark:

On October 7, 1997, City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-131, designating the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street as a historical landmark called the Doremus Stone Pines. At the time of passing of the resolution a total of 79 Italian stone pines existed on the street.

Background :

There are a total of 46 stone pines remaining on the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. The species profile for the street is almost entirely by Italian stone pines, aside from a lone specimen of Pinus canariensis, Canary Island Pine planted in the parkway in front of 827 East Anapamu Street. There are a total of 47 trees on the street.

The parkways vary in width from four feet in the 600 and 700 blocks, to six feet throughout the remainder of the street.

There are high voltage lines overhead on the southern side of the street spanning the full length of the designation. Both the southern and northern side of the street also have house drops for electrical and communication lines for phone and cable. Common underground infrastructure like water and gas meters are in most parkways along the street.

Attachment 3
Historic Landmarks Commission Recommendation:

On July 17, staff presented an update to the Historic Landmarks Commission on the status and long-term expectations for the existing Italian stone pines. The update included requesting feedback on the existing species designation and their thoughts regarding modifying, changing, or keeping the designation as Italian Stone Pine. Of the six members present during the presentation there was unanimous support for the continued use of Italian stone pine on the street.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation:

On July 24, staff presented an update to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission provided feedback on replanting options for the street. There was consensus from the members to continue the use of Italian stone pines. Members also commented that they understood how this species may not be the most well adapted to deal with our changing climate as well as referencing that there may be a need for a codesignation to maximize on street canopy cover. 1 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Street Tree Advisory Committee

REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, October 3, 2024
8:30 AM
Regular Meeting Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER 8:37 AM

2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Duke McPherson, Anthony DeMola, and Bruce Reed.

Members absent: Santos Escobar and Maury Treman.

Parks and Recreation staff present: Nathan Slack, Brett Volpi, Eryn Blazey, Kristin Bain, and Patricia Herrera.

Members of the public: Isabelle Walker, Linda Bentsen, Davy Lorien, Emman Brinkman, Cheri Rae, and Mickey Cornish.

3. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting September 5, 2024.

Motion: Member McPherson moved, seconded by member Reed, to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of September 5, 2024.

Vote: 3/0.

6. MEMBER AND STAFF COMMUNICATION
A. Mr. Slack advised STAC of Parks and Recreation Commission actions.

STREET TREES
None

SETBACK TREES
None

7. STREET TREE MASTER PLAN

1. All of Almond Avenue – modify existing designation for a low/very low water use selection – staff
The Committee recommends that the Commission change the designation from Prunus cerasifera ‘Atropurpurea,’ Purple-Leaf Plum to Chilopsis linearis, Desert Willow and Gingko biloba, Maidenhair Tree for all of Almond Avenue.

Motion: Member Reed moved, seconded by member DeMola, to change the designation from Prunus cerasifera ‘Atropurpurea,’ Purple-Leaf Plum to Chilopsis Attachment 4
2 linearis, Desert Willow and Gingko biloba, Maidenhair Tree for all of Almond Avenue, passed.

Vote: 3/0.

8. OLD BUSINESS

1. 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street – review existing designations – staff The Committee recommends that the Commission change the designation from Pinus pinea to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak for the 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street.

Motion: Member Reed moved, seconded by member DeMola, to change the designation from Pinus pinea, Italian Stone Pine to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak for the 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street, passed.

Vote: 3/0.

9. NEW BUSINESS
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 AM
Respectfully submitted,
Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Superintendent
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Nathan Slack at 564-5433. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements.

Agenda Item: 3

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT
AGENDA DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks Division, Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: Street Tree Advisory Committee Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission:

A. Approve the following changes to the Street Tree Master Plan:

1. 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street – review existing designation – staff The Committee evaluated the request to review the existing street tree species designation of Italian Stone Pine for the 300 – 800 blocks of East Anapamu Street.

The request is part of a comprehensive review and assessment of the existing Italian Stone Pines, prompted by the need for replanting due to tree losses over time. The Committee discussed both the positives and negatives of continuing to use the species. While they agreed that the trees provided a unique and beloved aesthetic on the street, they determined that the Italian Stone Pine was no longer was an ideal choice for planting in the parkways. The Committee noted the root system of the Italian Stone Pine requires frequent repair to surrounding hardscapes, more often than several other tree species. Additionally, they noted an increased decline in most conifer species throughout Santa Barbara, including the pines.

As the review continued, the Committee discussed 17 tree species for consideration, seven of which had a direct link to Dr. Doremus. Of these, they determined that Quercus agrifolia, the Coast Live Oak, was the most suitable. The Coast Live Oak is native to the area, thrives in a wide range of parkway sizes, causes minimal hardscape disruption, and provides significant habitat for local wildlife. The Committee also expressed a strong desire to maintain the aesthetic of a heavily canopied, tree-lined street, and they agreed that the Coast Live Oak could provide this over time.

There was also discussion about whether it was feasible to retain the existing designation of the Italian Stone Pine while adding the Coast Live Oak. Given the issues with the Italian Stone Pine, the Committee concluded that it would be difficult to keep the species as a significant part of the streetscape. Staff added that there were no plans to modify the street to create larger parkways, further Attachment 5
Parks and Recreation Commission Report
Street Tree Advisory Committee Recommendations
October 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

supporting the decision to move away from the Italian Stone Pine. After extensive review, discussion, and public comment, the Committee recommended changing the street tree designation to the Coast Live Oak.

The Committee recommends (3/0) that the Commission change the designation from Pinus pinea, Italian Stone Pine to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak for the 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street.

2. All of Almond Avenue – modify existing designation for a low/very low water use selection – staff
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a redevelopment project located at 621 West Micheltorena Street during the regular meeting of December 15, 2021.

The Commission approved the proposed removals and replacements as proposed on the application.

As part of the application, the applicant proposed new trees for Micheltorena Street and Almond Avenue. The City’s Water Efficient Landscape Standards Ordinance (No.6101) requires that all commercial developments use plants and trees classified as low or very low water use. The current designated tree species, Purple-Leaf Plum, is medium water use, requiring modification of the existing designation. The Committee reviewed the staff report and the species composition for the street. They discussed staff’s proposal to modify the street tree designation to include the use of Chilopsis linearis, Desert Willow, which is very low water use.

In addition to the Desert Willow staff recommended using Ginkgo biloba, Maidenhair Tree, a tree already occurring on streets, to add diversity to the planting palette for the street. After review, the Committee agreed with the staff report and recommended designating Desert Willow and Maidenhair Tree for Almond Avenue.

The Committee recommends (3/0) that the Commission change the designation from Prunus cerasifera ‘Atropurpurea,’ Purple-Leaf Cherry Plum to Chilopsis linearis, Desert Willow and Ginkgo biloba, Maidenhair Tree for all of Almond Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street

2. All of Almond Avenue
PREPARED BY: Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Superintendent
APPROVED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director Agenda Item: 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, October 23, 2024
Council Chamber, 735 Anacapa Street

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Kathy McGill called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Commissioners and Staff Present
Chair Kathy McGill
Vice Chair Nichol Clark
Commissioner Sebastian Aldana
Commissioner Jacob Lesner-Buxton
Parks and Recreation Director Jill Zachary
Urban Forest Superintendent Nathan Slack
Administrative Assistant Courtney Carlson
Commissioners Absent
Commissioner Robin Unander-LaBerge

GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Changes to the Agenda – None
B. Written Public Comment – Bill Parker, Santa Barbara Botanical Gardens, Paula Schaefer, Jessica Prichard, Sharon Summer, Jennifer Cox, Kathleen Dagg, Nolan Mitschke, Bruce Reed, Cheri Rae, Vanessa Rencher, Patricia Saley, Joanna Tang, Richard Closson, Howard Wittausch, Emma Brinkman, California Native Plant Society Channel Islands Chapter, Julie Dillemuth
C. Public Comment – None
D. Youth Council Report – None
E. Commissioner Committee Assignment Reports
Chair McGill reported on the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee Meeting.

F. Commission and Staff Communications – None
Attachment 6
Parks and Recreation Commission
Draft Minutes Regular Meeting October 23, 2024
2 CONSENT ITEMS

1. Summary of Council Actions – For Information

2. Subject: Minutes – For Action (Attachment)
Recommendation: That the Commission waive the reading and approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 25, 2024
Motion:

Commissioner Aldana / Clark to approve the minutes of the Regular Meetings of September 25, 2024.

Vote:

Majority vote (3/0/1) (Abstain: Lesner-Buxton)

STREET TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITEMS
Any action of the Parks and Recreation Commission made pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 15.20, Tree Planting and Maintenance or 15.24, Preservation of Trees, may be appealed to the City Council within ten days, pursuant to provisions of Section 1.30.050 of the Municipal Code.

3. Subject: Street Tree Advisory Committee Recommendations – For Action (Attachments)
Documents:
-Staff Report dated October 23, 2024
-Staff PowerPoint presented by Staff
Speakers:
-Urban Forest Superintendent Nathan Slack
-Robert Jones (3.A.1.)
-Rick Closson (3.A.1.)
-Cheri Rae (3.A.1.)
-Keith Nevison (3.A.1.)
-Emma Brinkman (3.A.1.)
-Duke McPherson (3.A.1.)
Recommendation: That the Commission:

A. Approve the following changes to the Street Tree Master Plan:

1. 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street – review existing designation - staff The Commission received the report, they listened to testimony, their questions were answered, and the following action was taken:

Parks and Recreation Commission
Draft Minutes Regular Meeting October 23, 2024
3 Motion:

Commissioner Clark / McGill to concur with the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommendation and approve changing the designation from Pinus pinea, Italian Stone Pine, to Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak for the 300 – 800 blocks of E. Anapamu Street. Chair McGill commented for the record that she acknowledged and appreciated hearing the concerns from public and written comments and that this decision was in the best interest of the future of the trees and the community. She also iterated that the 46 trees still standing will remain and be cared for.

Vote:

Unanimous vote (4/0)

2. All of Almond Avenue – modify existing designation for a low/very low water use selection – staff
The Commissioners received the report, and the following action was taken:

Motion:

Commissioner Aldana / Clark to concur with the Street Tree Advisory Committee recommendation and approve changing the designation from Prunus cerasifera ‘Atropurpurea’, Purple-Leaf Cherry Plum to Chilopsis linearis, Desert Willow and Gingko biloba, Maidenhair Tree for all of Almond Avenue.

Vote:

Unanimous vote (4/0)

ADMINISTRATIVE AND STAFF REPORTS

4. Subject: Director’s Report – For Information (Attachment) Documents:
-Staff Report dated October 23, 2024
Speakers:
-Parks and Recreation Director Jill Zachary
Recommendation: That the Commission receive a presentation on the status of the various Parks and Recreation Department initiatives and activities.

Parks and Recreation Director Jill Zachary reported on the Youth Council Forum held on October 21 at the Franklin Neighborhood Center; the upcoming Trunk or Treat Parks and Recreation Commission
Draft Minutes Regular Meeting October 23, 2024
4 event at Spencer Adams parking lot on October 30; the Adapted Recreation Program Bowling League; the upcoming Adapted Recreation Program Halloween Dance at the Carrillo Recreation Center on October 25; the Adapted Recreation Program Annual Thanksgiving Luncheon at the Westside Neighborhood Center on November 27; the second annual Rose Garden Volunteer Appreciation event on October 24; and the State Parks Meeting held on October 1 co-hosted by the City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department and the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Office of Grants and Local Services.

The Commissioners received the report.

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ADJOURNMENT
At 5:13 p.m., with no further business to be addressed by the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Jill E. Zachary,
Parks and Recreation Director
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
City Clerk’s Office
735 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Re: Appeal from the Parks & Recreation Commission Decision to designate a new Street Tree on 6 blocks of East Anapamu Street At the Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting of October 23, 2024, the Commission received and approved a recommendation from the Street Tree Advisory Committee (STAC) to designate a new species, Quercus agrifolia, as the official street tree for the 300-800 blocks of East Anapamu Street. Those blocks had previously been designated to have only the species, Pinus pinea, as the street tree by the Commission in 1982 and those trees (that species) had been protected by landmark status by City Council resolution 97-131 in 1997.

Our appeal is based on the City Council’s sole authority to establish - or revoke - landmark designations and attendant protections for features within the City. Allowing the PRC designation of a new street tree species for these blocks comes with the practical reality that – without active management including pruning, removal of dead or diseased trees, and replacement with their like species – the incremental effect of redesignation is the eventual elimination of the landmarked species, thereby revoking the City Council’s resolution.

We contend the PRC does not have the authority – by immediate direct action or prolonged incremental action – to de-landmark these trees.

We are independent residents of the City who have focused on the gradual demise of the landmarked trees since 2013. The larger Santa Barbara community has enjoyed and remarked upon the Attachment 7
E Anapamu St Street Tree Designation October 30, 2024 Page 2 of 2 character-defining canopy of the trees for far longer, resulting in the Council’s 1997 action.

Throughout the past decade, we have made our concerns publicly known. In addition, one year ago, we produced a substantial snapshot inventory of the trees and discussion of the issues and procedures we believe have resulted in the poor condition of the trees. The document has been circulated to some City staff and Commission members (PRC and Historic Landmarks) for review and consideration. The document was submitted as written public comment prior to the PRC meeting of October 23 and is appended to this appeal request.

We have discussed our concerns at many levels with involved officials including the City Historian and Urban Forest Superintendent, attendance and comment at STAC and HLC
meetings, as well as at the recent PRC meeting. We have followed the rules and take this appeal step as part of our support for the landmarked trees.

Sincerely,
Richard Closson Cheri Rae Emma Brinkman
3308 Calle Fresno 610 East Victoria St 1261 Ferrelo Road Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA
Closson R, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 1 of 79 The Iconic Italian Stone Pines of Anapamu Street:

A Revered City Landmark at Risk
Current Status of 57 Pinus pinea L. (Italian Stone Pine) Trees on the 300-800 Blocks of East Anapamu Street, Officially Designated as The “Doremus Pine Trees”
Richard Closson, Cheri Rae, and Emma Brinkman

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As many as ninety-four Italian Stone Pine trees were planted along six blocks of East Anapamu Street in 1908 and 1929. By 1997, seventy-nine trees remained, which were officially landmarked for their historic, scenic, and environmental features. In 2023 their number has dwindled to fifty-seven specimens including later replacements. The rate of demise seems to have accelerated after their landmarking, even in excess of what might be expected from natural age and elemental factors.

The authors conducted a several monthslong, multi-factor investigation of the trees’ history of care, assessed their current status, created a physical inventory of each tree, suggested possible causes for their collective deterioration, and now make recommendations for actions that might reverse the undesirable trend.

Results suggest increasing stresses related to environmental conditions, urban infra-structure, and staff misinterpretations of management responsibilities have seriously weakened the trees. These largely manmade conditions may prove fatal to the entire stand and the character-defining feature – the canopy – of the landmark if not actively addressed. Results further suggest the current overall management plan for this collective landmark has not been entirely effective or protective and may need extensive revision.

General recommendations include, 1) greater distinction in routine assessment, care, and maintenance between these landmarked trees and common street trees, 2) active measures to diagnosis and address primary causes of tree failure, including more and better irrigation during drought periods and improved oversight of active tree pruning, 3) creation and regular updating of a tree-specific database and plan of care, 4) clarification of the responsibilities for oversight boards and City staff for owned properties including live materials designated as landmarks by City Council, and 5) collaboration with other cities and local colleges to share experiences and techniques for Italian Stone Pine management.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 2 of 79 Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4 HISTORY...................................................................................................................................... 4 LANDMARK DESIGNATION........................................................................................................... 6 OUR INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................. 7 METHODS.................................................................................................................................... 7 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................................... 9 A. LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................... 9 B. INVENTORY DATA ................................................................................................................... 9 Table 1. Doremus Pine Tree Inventory.............................................................................................................. 10 C. PARCEL NUMBER ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 13 Table 2. APN List from 1997 Landmark Designation....................................................................................... 14 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................. 17 A. MAPS.................................................................................................................................... 17

1. Landmark Map Incorrect in 1997................................................................................................................. 17

2. Current Santa Barbara City GeoCortex Map Inaccurate ............................................................................ 17 B. EXCESSIVE TREE LOSS SINCE LANDMARKING...................................................................... 18 C. UNEVEN TREE GROWTH ON STREET BLOCKS ....................................................................... 19 D. POSSIBLE CAUSES OF TREE STRESS, WEAKENING, AND DEMISE .......................................... 20

1. Insufficient Water.......................................................................................................................................... 20

2. Street Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 22

3. Inappropriate Tree Crown Pruning .............................................................................................................. 23 E. EXAMPLES OF LOCAL SUCCESS............................................................................................. 24 F. EXAMPLES OF OUTSIDE SUCCESS .......................................................................................... 25 G. GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY: STATE VS. STATE? .................................................................... 26 H. GOVERNANCE OF SELF-OWNED HISTORIC PROPERTIES........................................................ 27

1. Historic Landmarks Commission.................................................................................................................. 27

2. Department of Parks and Recreation............................................................................................................ 28 I. GOVERNMENT SELF-RESPONSIBILITY: CITY VS. CITY? .......................................................... 30 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT.................................................................. 32 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 37 VIDEO RESOURCES................................................................................................................ 41 APPENDIX A: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 97-131............................................................. 43 APPENDIX B: DOREMUS PINE TREES: INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPHS............................................ 50 APPENDIX C: BLOCK-BY-BLOCK MAPS OF ITALIAN STONE PINES ON EAST ANAPAMU STREET 66 APPENDIX D: URBAN FOREST SUPERVISOR CORRESPONDENCE ................................................ 73 APPENDIX E: ENTOMOLOGIST INTERIM REPORT, OCTOBER 3, 2023.......................................... 78 APPENDIX F: POSSIBLE STREET SIGNAGE TO DENOTE THE LANDMARK .................................... 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 3 of 79

INTRODUCTION
Historic Citizen Concern for these Trees
In the 1960s Mike Pahos served as Parks Director for the City of Santa Barbara. In an interview in 2010, he described how his first encounter with civic leader Pearl Chase was focused on her concerns about the care of the Italian stone pines on Anapamu Street. As he reported some fifty years later, it remained his most vivid memory of her.
“We were trimming the Italian Stone Pine trees on Anapamu Street rather radically,” he reported. She showed up at his office and demanded he accompany her to view the pruning work together. “When we got there,” he added, “she pointed to the trees and said, ‘Look at that butchery!’” He acknowledged the work was extensive and recounted how he explained it extensively to her. “The trimming was radical because the Street Department had to lift the pavement and take two feet of sub soil out to repave the street, and they were going to do the same to the sidewalk. An enormous amount of tree root would be destroyed in the process because Italian Stone Pines are very shallow-rooted.”
Further, he remembered, “I told her I had checked with several arborists in town and they all said the crowns of the trees must be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the root system.” He continued, “She was silent for a moment, and then she said, ‘I see.’ She then drove me back to the office.

Whew!”
Pahos reflected, “Thinking back, local park system administration is a very ‘nose to nose’ type of business. People love every stone, bush, and tree in their neighborhood parks, and those beyond. That important lesson was taught to me by the best in the business. That was Pearl Chase.” SOURCE: Rae, C. (2010)
We are concerned citizens with an interest in historic preservation, an appreciation for the ambience of unique neighborhoods and - like most of Santa Barbara’s residents and visitors - a fondness for the trees of our community. The more we have learned about Italian stone pines here and in other locations, the more concerned we have become about their health, how they are monitored, and their consequences for public safety.

We are not paid consultants. This is an independent citizen effort and report initiated by the authors’ personal observations that the objects of a designated City Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 4 of 79 Landmark are in serious and obvious decline. As we report, of the 79 trees that were designated landmarks in 1997 with their accompanying Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), there are now 25 APNs with no tree, a net loss of 32% (25/79).

Readers will learn that the precarious nature and decline of this living landmark has been on display and watched by officials and the public, alike, for more than a decade without improvement.

The data collected and presented herein on individual trees and the collective stand are offered as public information without reservation or restriction on use.

The suggestions and recommendations are made without any force of authority that they be followed, although we hope they will be considered seriously for enactment in whole or part.

Richard Closson Cheri Rae Emma Brinkman
3308 Calle Fresno 610 East Victoria Street 1261 Ferrelo Road Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

BACKGROUND
“Dr. Doremus, a resident of East Anapamu Street, planted them along his street. From those tiny seeds have grown the mighty row of trees that line both sides of that very shady road. The current USDA website indicates that of the entire United States, only two spots are home to the Italian Stone Pine: Santa Barbara, and a tiny spot in the Bay area in northern California. The pines are, indeed, a rare treasure in America.” SOURCE: Berry C. (2008)
History
In 1908 an unknown number of Italian stone pine saplings were planted by Dr.

A.B. Doremus along four blocks (500-800, from Olive to Milpas Streets) of East Anapamu Street. In 1921 East Anapamu Street received curbs and gutters, but remained unpaved. In 1929 a second unknown number of Italian stone pines were planted by Ralph Stevens on two additional blocks (300-400, crossing Garden and Laguna Streets) of East Anapamu Street. Approximately nine decades after the initial planting, the remaining 79 trees on those combined six blocks were landmarked in 1997 by the Santa Barbara City Council.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 5 of 79 Probably less is known about this City landmark than about others, which typically are built structures. We have no permit details, no construction notes, no cost estimates. We know the original “owner,” Dr. A.B. Doremus, who received the seeds his brother, Edward Peter Doremus, sent from Italy. We know the “builder,” Dr. Francesco Franceschi, who sprouted the seeds and nurtured them until they were well enough established to be planted on the early unpaved street. We know even less about the trees planted in 1929.

Augustus Boyd Doremus (1842-1937) volunteered to be the City’s first Parks Superintendent and was president of the City Parks Commission (1902-20).

Francesco Franceschi (1843-1924) was an Italian-American botanist noted in Santa Barbara for introducing a vast number of successful plant species and cultivars to our region.

Ralph Stevens (1882-1958) was Montecito-born, taught landscape architecture at UC Berkeley (1913-17), was our first salaried City Parks Superintendent (1919-21), and for whom Stevens Park is named.

In subsequent years there were a number of events that would reasonably impact the trees’ growth and health adversely. (from Exhibit B of the 1997 City Council Resolution No. 97-131, attached as our Appendix A.)
Photo 1 - taken in 1923 - looks west down East Anapamu St. toward the intersection with Alta Vista Road (on the right). Italian Stone Pines planted by Dr. A.B. Doremus can be seen lining the left (south) side of this 700 block and both sides beyond Alta Vista Road to Olive St. These trees are approximately 15 years old. Notice there are no trees planted on the north half-block approaching Alta Vista. In 1924, the new Santa Barbara High School would be completed on the left. In 1929, City Parks Superintendent Ralph Stevens would have Italian Stone Pines planted on both sides of the street on the 300 (Garden) and 400 (Laguna) blocks.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 6 of 79 • 1943 – the trees’ roots were “pruned prior to street improvements” • 1953 – again the trees’ roots were “pruned prior to street improvements” • 1968 - “street and sidewalk pavement was repaired or replaced as necessary”
• 1982 – “all concrete curbs and gutters and driveway aprons were replaced as part of a $400,000 public works street improvement project along East Anapamu”
• 1986 – “all badly damaged sidewalks in the subject blocks were replaced … and the trees were pruned again”
Nevertheless, by 1997 there remained 79 Italian stone pine trees - probably of varying maturities - considered for Landmark recommendation by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC).

Landmark Designation
On July 23, 1997, the HLC adopted a resolution of intention to begin the Landmark designation process for the stand of Italian stone pine trees on East Anapamu Street. On August 6, 1997, the Commission held a public hearing on the proposal. Despite the open invitation for public comments, no person spoke in opposition. The resolution was forwarded to the City Council.

The Council considered the HLC recommendation at its meeting of October 7, 1997, and approved the recommendation unanimously. [City Council Resolution No. 97-131, 1997], as our Appendix A.

At the time of the Landmark Resolution, the condition of the trees was described in the aggregate rather than as individual specimens.
“The attractive rows of Stone Pine trees which create an arching canopy over East Anapamu Street were planted in 1908 …
“Also known as Italian Stone Pines or Umbrella Pines, the flat-topped, spreading trees are approximately sixty feet tall …
“As many as ten or fifteen of the Stone Pine Trees [of those thought to be originally planted] have been lost to causes such as drought, age and developmental trauma, but 79 trees remain to provide an attractively uniform appearance and shading for the neighborhood.”
Internal Exhibit A, page 1, of that Landmark Resolution includes a map of the covered blocks with icons to suggest the precise placement of trees. Upon close examination, there are only 36 icons to represent the 79 trees. In addition, Exhibit A, page 2, is a list of APNs for the trees. Only 64 APNs are listed; this may be Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 7 of 79 accurate, but is imprecise. Our assessment is that neither the map nor the APN list is a reliable accounting of the trees. We have only their numerical count, 79, as a benchmark.

OUR INVESTIGATION
“…based upon the most recent inspection of the remaining 75 trees: 4 trees are dead and awaiting removal; 12 trees are in poor health, 24 are in fair health, 26 are in good health, and 19 are in excellent health.” [from a report by the City Arborist to the Pearl Chase Society. Note the misspoken count of 85 trees, not 75.] As a result of the arborist’s presentation, including reported success in Los Angeles’ Griffith Park, the Pearl Chase Society donated $14,560 to purchase 56 “irricades” to be used for these trees SOURCE: Rae, C. (2014a)
In order to document the current condition of trees collectively within the Doremus Pine Trees landmark, we created a benchmark record of each individual tree as of mid-August 2023. We are not plant scientists or arborists, although one of us (E.B.) earned a baccalaureate degree in Botany. To the best of our abilities, we attempted to collect useful information for the current resuscitation and future maintenance of the trees, as well as a possible model for ongoing regular tree data collection.

Methods

1. A physical inventory was conducted of all current Italian stone pine trees (Pinus pinea L.) within the landmarked blocks of East Anapamu Street, specifically
a. A Unique Number for each tree was assigned for simple nomenclature and identity. Numbers were assigned - beginning with 1 - at the easternmost point of East Anapamu Street and working westward, based roughly on a pedestrian path. This was a historical choice because it is one end of the earlier planted stand (1908) and because most maps of the street are oriented with the eastern end near the top. b. Nearest House Address was used as the informal location of each tree by visual assessment at the time of the initial inspection and inventory.

The address was later confirmed or corrected according to Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and current Google maps (accessed August 19, 2023). Those block maps are included as Appendix C.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 8 of 79 c. Precise Tree Location was determined for each tree. The Global Positioning System (GPS) - employing World Geodetic system 1984 (WGS 84) coordinates for longitude and latitude - was used to determine the consistent position of each tree irrespective of street address or APN. Measurements were taken using the
GeographicLocator® app, v. 3.0.0 (106) on an iPhone 8 running iOS

16.6. d. Trunk Circumference Measurements. Arborists typically measure a tree trunk at a point approximately 54 inches (4.5 feet) above ground, known as “breast height,” which was used later to calculate the standard trunk width measurement: Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). (For the Doremus Pine Trees, decades of trunk confinement at the base by pavement, curb, and sidewalk has created an extensive burl at the base of some trees, making breast height imprecise for those trees) e. General apparent health and condition of each tree. Subjective cursory notes were taken to record noticeable abnormalities or health stresses to trees.

2. Photographs of each tree, sometimes more than one, occasionally including adjacent notable features, were taken to show its general condition, to aid later identification, and to callout specific elements. See Appendix B.

3. Maps were created for each block of the landmark area using current online Google maps. A generic tree icon for Italian stone pine was placed on its map, visually coordinated with our physical inventory locations a. The block-by-block maps were compared to the landmarked map of the Council’s Resolution “79 Italian Stone Pine Trees on Anapamu Street” [our Appendix A, Exhibit A, page 1, Resolution No. 97-131] b. The block-by-block maps were compared to the current Santa Barbara City Geocortex Maps Vegetation>Tree Inventory Layer at
https://maps.santabarbaraca.gov/Html5Viewer/Index.html [our Appendix C.]

4. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) listed in the Council’s Resolution [our Appendix A, Exhibit A, page 2, Resolution No. 97-131] were validated and cross-referenced to current APNs for concurrence, and used to identify specific tree locations

5. Online searches of several types were performed. Because we are not arborists, botanists, or plant scientists, we made liberal use of online search engines to provide background information that appeared relevant or important to our project. The relevant articles are listed near the end of this document as References. Not all are cited in our work but Portable Document Format (PDF) copies of each are available from us if desired.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 9 of 79 a. For background and tree care guidance, a wide variety of search terms for scholarly articles relevant to the growth and native habitat of Italian stone pine trees were performed. See our section References. b. To learn from other cities with significant stands of Italian stone pine trees that might serve as examples, searches for articles and videos were reviewed.
c. The City of Lompoc was visited to view and photograph their historic trees. Some local officials and residents were interviewed about their established plans of tree care

6. Historical photographs and other materials were searched at the Santa Barbara Historical Museum for early images of, and information on, the trees.

7. Outside human resources, such as landscape architects and entomologists were consulted during our observations. A respected entomologist, Dr.

Frank Sances, inspected the trees with one of us (EB) and provided an interim report with a request to the Urban Forest Supervisor for additional relevant information. See Appendix E.

Findings
A. Limitations
• We are members of the public, not arborists with training to determine tree condition; our assessments reflect our lay views of apparent health. One of us earned a degree in Botany, but none of us claim expertise in the field. • Field measurements of some metrics can be imprecise. Particularly on mature Italian stone pine trees with irregular trunks and bark, measuring circumference can introduce error. Exact GPS coordinates – particularly with large, mature specimens - can vary with position at the tree during measurement.
• We present a snapshot in time. We have not followed the trees longitudinally, although we believe that should be done and is one of our recommendations.
• All assessments about prior care or maintenance are mere assumptions based on current conditions.
• Any recommendations are best-guess suggestions
B. Inventory Data
Compilation of our direct observations and inventory are displayed in Table 1, below. Primarily it lists each Italian stone pine tree planted in the street parkway Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 10 of 79 between the paved roadway and the pedestrian sidewalk on the 300-800 blocks, inclusive, of East Anapamu Street. Attributes for each tree are listed, including • Unique consecutive number
• Nearest street address number
• Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
• Measured trunk circumference
• Calculated Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)
• Geolocation: latitude and longitude
• Notes on condition and reference photographs
Because the Landmark documentation included the then-current APNs where designated trees were located in 1997, we also noted the absence of any Italian stone pine within that parcel now.

Table 1. Doremus Pine Tree Inventory
No. Addr APN
Circuma
(in)
Diamb
DBH (in) Latitude Longitude Notes
836 29-192-08 58
1 827 29-201-01 125 40 34.432713 -119.694621 1
826 29-192-07 58
818 29-192-05 58
2 817 29-44-01 68 22 34.432454 -119.694868 2
3 813 29-150-40 81 26 34.432303 -119.695041 3
811 29-150-17 58
4 814 29-192-04 127 40 34.432153 -119.694972 4
810 29-192-03 58
806 29-192-02 58
802 29-192-01 58
801 29-150-18 58
745 29-150-44 58
737 29-62-01 58
5 734 29-191-01 48 15 34.431453 -119.695654 5
6 733 29-150-20 108 34 34.431586 -119.695810 6
715 29-150-23 58
711 29-150-24 58
707 29-150-25 58
1200 29-150-26 58
7 ~722 29-240-03 46 15 34.431310 -119.695872 7
8 721 29-150-22 40 13 34.431381 -119.695943 8
9 ~714 29-240-03 34 11 34.431197 -119.696001 9,59
10 ~712 29-240-03 67 21 34.431030 -119.696123 10
11 ~708 29-240-03 86 27 34.431010 -119.696218 11
12 ~706 29-240-10 118 38 34.430882 -119.696353 12
13 700 29-240-03 75 24 34.430590 -119.696518 13
14 ~636 29-240-10 61 19 34.430466 -119.696790 14
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 11 of 79 No. Addr APN
Circuma
(in)
Diamb
DBH (in) Latitude Longitude Notes
15 ~614 29-240-10 61 19 34.430159 -119.697155 15
16 ~637 29-142-20 38 12 34.430592 -119.696974 16
17 ~629 29-142-20 115 37 34.430368 -119.697098 17
18 ~610 29-240-10 96 31 34.430047 -119.697227 18
19 ~615 29-142-19 142 45 34.430269 -119.697201 19
20 601 29-142-19 126 40 34.430055 -119.697471 20
21 531 29-141-10 37 12 34.429535 -119.697930 21
22 530 29-180-07 78 25 34.429468 -119.697881 22
23 521 29-141-36 23 7 34.429487 -119.698025 23,59
24 526 29-180-06 133 42 34.429339 -119.698045 24,60
522 29-180-05 58
25 518 29-180-20 143 46 34.429216 -119.698200 25,60
26 512 29-180-03 114 36 34.429003 -119.698466 26,60
27 508 29-180-02 139 44 34.428880 -119.698485 27
28 511 29-141-13 173 55 34.428997 -119.698570 28
29 503 29-141-14 132 42 34.428880 -119.698668 29
30 508 29-180-02 149 47 34.428788 -119.698577 30,60
31 502 29-180-01 66 21 34.428715 -119.698700 31
32 436 29-173-09 149 47 34.428500 -119.698922 32
435 29-133-11 58
433 29-133-12 58
33 430 29-173-08 38 12 34.428404 -119.698989 33,59
428 29-173-07 58
34 427 29-133-13 59 19 34.428348 -119.699158 34
35 425 29-133-14 139 44 34.428319 -119.699288 35
36 424 29-173-06 125 40 34.428219 -119.699175 36,60
420 29-69-01 58
37 419 29-133-15 142 45 34.428240 -119.699380 37
38 416 29-173-04 55 18 34.428025 -119.699391 38
39 417 29-133-16 155 49 34.428132 -119.699518 39
411 29-133-17 58
40 410 29-173-03 146 46 34.427865 -119.699539 40
409 29-133-18 43
41 408 29-173-02 87 28 34.427750 -119.699636 41
42 403 29-133-19 132 42 34.427832 -119.699752 42
43 404 29-460-01 193 61 34.427671 -119.699781 43
44 403 29-133-19 135 43 34.427715 -119.699892 44
334 29-171-11 58
45 333 29-131-13 162 52 34.427468 -119.700163 45
46 330 29-171-17 47 15 34.427384 -119.700125 46,59
47 329 29-131-14 135 43 34.427430 -119.700297 47
48 328 29-171-09 154 49 34.427262 -119.700238 48
49 325 29-131-15 148 47 34.427310 -119.700393 49
320 29-171-08 58
50 319 29-131-16 117 37 34.427201 -119.700489 50
51 318 29-171-07 121 39 34.427095 -119.700454 51
52 319 29-131-16 55 18 34.427127 -119.700572 52
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 12 of 79 No. Addr APN
Circuma
(in)
Diamb
DBH (in) Latitude Longitude Notes
53 316 29-171-06 97 31 34.426906 -119.700558 53
308 29-171-04 58
306 29-171-02 58
54 305 29-131-24 129 41 34.427006 -119.700700 54
55 305 29-131-24 112 36 34.426929 -119.700805 55
56 300 29-171-01 140 45 34.426583 -119.700938 56
57 305 29-131-24 29 9 34.426720 -119.701006 57,58,59
Table 1. Key a Trunk Circumference (inches) measured at Breast Height, approximately 54 inches b Trunk Diameter at Breast Height (inches) calculated with d = C/π Table 1. Notes
1 Healthy. At Milpas. No irricade. Photos 5344, 5346.
2 Healthy. Near Irricade 56. Photo 5347.
3 Sick. Crooked trunk. Bad prune for powerlines. Photos 5348, 5349. 4 Bad prune. Adjacent Irricade. Photos 5350, 5351, 5352. 5 Little Granada wall. Healthy youngster. Photos 5353, 5355. 6 Healthy. No irricade. Installed dedication plaque: Henshaw (2013). Photos 5354, 5356, 5426,
7 Santa Barbara High School parking lot. MTD stop. Installed dedication plaque: Adams (2023 sic). Photos 5357,5425.
8 Healthy. Photo 5358.
9 Irricades 52, 50. Across from 715 E Anapamu. Installed dedication plaque: Franz (2008).

Photos 5359, 5424.
10 Stressed. Leans. Near Irricade 48. HS parking. Across from 711 E Anapamu. Photo 5361. 11 High School child playground. Near Irricade 46. Photo 5362. 12 Stressed. East of HS entry. Across from 707 E Anapamu. Photo 5363. 13 At entry behind SBHS monument sign. Photo 5364.
14 West of HS entrance. Near Irricade 4. Installed dedication plaque: Pitts-Hill (2021). Photos 5431, 5465.
15 Stressed. West of HS entrance. Near Irricade 38. Photos 5430, 5468. 16 Leaning. At corner of Alta Vista (1201). MTD bench. Near Irricade 51. Photo 5366. 17 Stressed. Pruned for powerline. Near Irricade 45. Photo 5367. 18 Stressed. Overlooking Peabody Stadium. Near Irricade 36. Photo 5429. 19 Stressed. Photo 5369.
20 Crown pruned for powerline. Near Irricade 27. Photo 5370. Near site of removed mature tree on Google Maps Dec 2022. Photo 5371.
21 Healthy but crooked trunk. Photo 5372.
22 Healthy. Near Irricade 30. Photo 5373.
23 Healthy. Near Irricade 35. Photo 5374. Installed dedication plaque: Burns (2/1/2006). Photo 5424. This tree landmarked in APN 29-141-36,very close to parcel border; our map shows approximate placement in adjacent parcel, now numbered APN 29-360-04 24 Stressed. Crown trimmed. Photo 5375.
25 Stressed. Crown trimmed. Near Irricade 26. Photo 5377.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 13 of 79 Table 1. Notes
26 Slanted bifurcated trunk. Near Irricade 24. Photo 5378. 27 Irricade 24. Between driveways 512 & 508 E Anapamu. Photo 5379. 28 Powerlines through canopy. Near Irricade 31. Photo 5380. 29 Powerlines through canopy. Photo 5381.
30 Between driveways of 508 & 502 E Anapamu. Photo 5382. 31 At corner Olive St. Photo 5383.
32 Crown pruned for powerlines. Photos 5385, 5390. Installed dedication plaque: Dalio (2021).

Photo 5423. Near upended empty Irricade 22. Photo 5386. 33 Healthy. Photo 5387. Dedication plaque: Santa Barbara High School (2023). Photo 5388. 34 Leaning. MTD bench. Photo 5389.
35 Near Irricade 23. Photo 5391.
36 Thin canopy. Photo 5392.
37 Thin canopy. Near Irricade 21. Photo 5393.
38 Healthy. Upright trunk. Photo 5394. Dedicated plaque: Higbie (3/3/2006) 39 Thin canopy. Photo 5395.
40 Trifurcated trunk. Photo 5396.
41 Google maps 12/22 shows irricade, now gone. Photo 5397. 42 Thin canopy. Near Irricades 15, 17. Photos 5398.
43 Corner Laguna St. Photo 5399. This tree could be originally listed at APN 29-133-18 where there is no current tree, but it is on the south side of East Anapamu, not the North side where that original APN is situated.
44 Leaning. Photo 5400. At corner Laguna St. Near Irricade 13. Photo 5401. 45 Near Irricade 11. Photo 5402.
46 Curved trunk. Photo. 5403. Dedicated plaque: Williams (2/1/2006) 47 Thin canopy. Photo 5404.
48 Thin canopy. Photo 5405.
49 Thin canopy. Photo 5406. Near Irricade 9
50 Thin canopy. Photo 5407. Near Irricade 7
51 Healthy. Photo 5408.
52 East of church parking lot entrance. Photo 5409. Near Irricade 5 53 Google shows Irricade 6, gone now. Photo 5410. Installed dedication plaque: Ott (1982).

Photo 5422.
54 Thin canopy. West of church parking lot entrance. Photo 5411. Near Irricade 3. Photo 5412. 55 Near Irricade 1. Photo 5413.
56 Corner of Garden St. Photo 5414. Addressed at 1134 Garden St 57 At entry of 1st Methodist Church. Photo 5415. Dedicated plaque: Grisham (12/25/2006) 58 No current tree at this APN from 1997 landmark documents 59 Based on estimated age, this tree was not in place at the 1997 Landmarking 60 Tree removed as of April 28, 2024
C. Parcel Number Assessment
We examined the list of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (our Appendix A “Council Resolution No. 97-131, Exhibit ‘A’ – Page two”) for validity. We used that listing to crosscheck our observed trees. We were aided by staff at the Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office to identify APNs that had changed due to development and – in one case – where an APN was entirely incorrect in the original Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 14 of 79 documentation. The results of this secondary investigation - precipitated by our records examination - are shown in Table 2, below.

The Landmark list purports to be a complete and accurate accounting. Upon first inspection, the list contains 64 APNs (including one duplicate) for the 79 Landmarked trees. This apparent discrepancy is probably explained by the eight current trees planted along the frontage of Santa Barbara High School, which is identified as just two assessor parcels.

Our Table 2 lists the APNs in the same order shown on the Landmark documentation for ease of comparison.
• Thirty-three original parcels still have a single tree • Six original parcels have multiple (2-5) trees now
• Twenty-five original parcels have no tree now
• Four parcels not listed in 1997 have trees now
Table 2. APN List from 1997 Landmark Designation
APN 1997 APN 2023 Address Tree # Notes
29-131-16 319 50,52
29-131-15 325 49
29-131-13 333 45
29-133-19 403 44
29-133-18 409 No Tree
29-133-17 411 No Tree
29-133-16 417 39
29-133-15 419 37
29-133-14 425 35
29-133-13 427 34
29-133-12 433 No Tree
29-133-11 435 No Tree
29-141-14 503 29
29-141-13 511 28
29-141-36 29-360-04 521 23
29-141-10 531 21
29-142-19 601, 615 20, 19
29-142-20 629, 637 17, 16 1201 Alta Vista
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 15 of 79 APN 1997 APN 2023 Address Tree # Notes
29-015-26 29-150-26 701 No Tree 1200 Alta Vista
29-015-25 29-150-25 707 No Tree
29-015-24 29-150-24 711 No Tree
29-015-23 29-150-23 715 No Tree
29-015-22 29-150-22 721 8
29-015-39 29-44-01 817 2
29-015-20 29-150-20 733 6
29-015-19 29-62-01 737 No Tree
29-015-18 29-150-18 801 No Tree
29-015-17 29-150-17 811 No Tree
29-015-40 29-150-40 813 3
29-015-44 29-150-44 745 No Tree 1219 N Nopal
29-015-20 29-150-20 733 6 Duplicate
29-171-01 300 56 1134 Garden
29-171-02 306 No Tree
29-171-04 308 No Tree
29-171-06 316 53
29-171-07 318 51
29-171-08 320 No Tree
29-171-09 328 48
29-171-17 330 46
29-171-11 334 No Tree
29-173-01 29-460-01 404 43
29-173-02 408 41
29-173-03 410 40
29-173-04 416 38
29-173-05 29-069-01 420 No Tree
29-173-06 424 36
29-173-07 428 No Tree
29-173-08 430 33
29-173-09 436 32 1129 Olive
29-181-01 29-180-01 502 31
29-181-02 29-180-02 508 27,30
29-181-20 29-180-20 518 25
29-181-05 29-180-05 522 No Tree
29-181-06 29-180-06 526 24
29-181-07 29-180-07 530 22
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 16 of 79 APN 1997 APN 2023 Address Tree # Notes
29-181-09 29-180-09 610,614,636 18,15,14 SB High School 29-181-24 29-240-03 706,708,712 12,11,10, Original APN
714,722 9,7 invalid*
29-191-01 734 5
29-192-01 802 No Tree
29-192-02 806 No Tree
29-192-03 810 No Tree
29-192-04 814 4
29-192-05 818 No Tree
29-192-07 826 No Tree
29-192-08 836 No Tree
Added APNs Address Tree # Notes
29-131-14 329 47 Mature trees not
29-131-24 305 54,55,57† on original APN
29-180-03 512 26 landmarking list§
29-201-01 827 1
Table 2. Notes
* County Assessor Mapping/GIS Analyst suggested an original invalid APN, probably meant to be APN 29-240-03, the SB High School frontage on the 700 block (Personal communication, August 18, 2023)
† One juvenile tree (#57 at church entrance) with 2 mature trees older than 1997 § Should these additional trees be landmarked if not on original APNs? Those parcels near the northeast corner of Alta Vista Road are, again, problematic.

The list of landmarked APNs (supposedly with trees) includes 029-150-023, 024, 025, and 026, none of which now have or ever had trees! It is unclear how this error occurred or persisted.

Examination of the landmark listing of APNs raises questions of 1) whether trees only at the specific APNs should be considered landmarked, 2) whether replacement trees at the same site on the same APN are landmarked “by right,” and 3) whether trees later planted on APNs not listed in the landmark resolution are included as designated landmark trees. We offer a recommendation later to resolve these questions.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 17 of 79

DISCUSSION
“The stone pines are magnificent trees of great value to the community and the city’s urban forest. The ones to be removed will be missed tremendously. We will endeavor to do all that we can to make sure the remaining trees thrive during the drought and for many years beyond,” stated Mayor Helene Schneider
SOURCE: Anon. (2014a)
We believed a physical inventory of the individual landmarked trees had not been performed for over a quarter century. We would be delighted to learn otherwise.

Because of this, our initial intent was to perform that inventory to the best of our abilities and determine what was to be learned. Those data are presented above in Table 1. We learned a lot. We learned even more about the documents presented to the City Council in 1997 in support of the landmark recommendation.

A. Maps

1. Landmark Map Incorrect in 1997.

The map of trees (our Appendix A “Council Resolution No. 97-131, ‘Exhibit A’”) along the six blocks of East Anapamu Street, perhaps submitted as a valid map of the trees’ placement (although the document is silent on this) cannot reflect the true position of trees. The landmark resolution is for “79 individual trees” where there are only 36 tree icons placed on the included map. In addition, the map shows two tree icons on the north side of East Anapamu Street near the intersection with Alta Vista Road (APNs 029-150-024 and 029-150-026). Comparison with our Photo 1, above, taken in 1923, shows no trees planted there. Today there are no trees in those spots and no remnants or stumps of trees that might have been there in 1997.

Clearly, the original landmark map was not accurate. We created current block-byblock maps using available Google Maps (approximately https://bit.ly/44GzCPY) and placed a tree icon accurately on the maps for each tree in our inventory. See Appendix C.

2. Current Santa Barbara City GeoCortex Map Inaccurate. We used the City’s Map Analysis and Printing System (MAPS) GeoCortex Interactive map and removed all GIS layers except the Vegetation>Tree Inventory Layer at https://bit.ly/45SVqcc. As users of the online MAPS are warned, “Every Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 18 of 79 reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the maps and data provided; nevertheless, some information may not be accurate.” We found it was, indeed, not accurate. For a designated landmark stand of trees within a defined set of blocks of a single street, we expected better accuracy. See Appendix C for a comparison of the GeoCortex map blocks and our maps created from the physical inventory.

B. Excessive Tree Loss Since Landmarking
The Landmark Resolution’s Historical Background is imprecise regarding the original number of trees planted in 1908 or supplemented in 1929, and does not clearly state if all the early lost trees had been replaced with saplings. The Landmark document narrative suggests, “As many as ten or fifteen of the Stone Pine Trees [of those thought to be originally planted] have been lost to causes such as drought, age and developmental trauma, but 79 trees remain to provide an attractively uniform appearance and shading for the neighborhood.” Although 79 trees were landmarked in 1997, the total count of current trees is 57, which is a net loss of 22 trees (28%) not counting obvious juveniles replaced since then (see below), but the true picture could be worse. On eight of those landmarknoted APNs the current trees have trunk diameters 10”-15” (tree numbers 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, 21, 33, and 46) that could have been planted after the 1997 landmarking, a quarter century before. An additional two trees on landmarked APNs have trunk diameters less than 10” (tree numbers 23 and 57), which definitely postdate landmarking. This suggests the remaining number of landmarked trees might be as low as 47 (current count of 57 trees, minus 10 that appear younger than 26 years old), representing a loss of as much as 41%. This reflects poorly on the maintenance of a City Landmark in a city known for its landmarks.

The 1997 assessment of original Doremus and Stevens trees planted may not be correct but, if it is, it says two important things:
• The educated guess was the original number of trees was 79 (alive in 1997) plus 10-15 (lost to drought, age, and trauma) = 89-94 original trees. • In the intervening 89 years (1908-1997) since the first planting, there might have been 15/94 = 16% of the trees lost.

In the first 89 years, 16% of the trees may have been lost while 41% seem to have been lost in the ensuing 26 years. This does not seem to be appropriate plant husbandry for trees designated as historically important, i.e., landmark-worthy, and an important feature of the neighborhood.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 19 of 79 C. Uneven Tree Growth on Street Blocks
Because the Landmark document does not list individual tree placement, and because the listed APNs for Santa Barbara High School include a long length of the street, it is difficult to confirm if original trees were equally spaced, although that would be logical.

We investigated the average tree circumferences for each numbered block of East Anapamu Street. Those results are displayed below in Chart 2. To us, the 700 block of trees seemed to be a noticeable outlier, signifying either stunted tree growth or a preponderance of young replacement trees. These possibilities could be consecutive steps the same process of tree decline. Stunted and/or young trees do not provide the typical canopy for which Italian Stone Pines are also called “Umbrella Trees.” The canopy apparent in 1997 is a character defining feature of the landmark. Regardless of the precise cause, among our recommendations is a focus on the 700 block trees to restore them and their canopy.

This can be particularly important because this single block within the landmark is devoted largely to the streetface of an institution, Santa Barbara High School. The high school is a local and State historic landmark and is distinct from the residential blocks of the Doremus Pine Trees city landmark. Perhaps this difference in tree size on this block is evidence that private watering done by neighborhood residents is responsible for their trees’ larger sizes and fuller canopies. This might underscore how a simple solution, improved irrigation, can have a noticeable effect.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 20 of 79 D. Possible Causes of Tree Stress, Weakening, and Demise We considered possible causes of tree failure and discuss here several – although not all – possibilities. One focus of Department of Parks and Recreation staff has been some trees’ infestation by California native bark beetles. While Coleoptera and other pests will attack stressed or weakened trees, thereby becoming the proximate cause of accelerated tree death, they coexist in nature and rarely are the primary cause of a tree’s demise. (Smith, S., 2015) We focused on what we consider to be primary causes, not the secondary aftermath of stressors, i.e., not bark beetles which are an opportunistic threat to already weakened trees.

1. Insufficient Water. Historically Santa Barbara County received about 18 inches annual rainfall since the beginning of the 20th century as shown in Chart 3 (below). This is less than the average rainfall in other European and Middle Eastern countries where the Italian Stone Pine grows and is cultivated for pine nuts (seeds), an essential ingredient in traditional pesto. Toromani, et al. (2015) showed Stone Pines’ sensitivity even to seasonal rainfall changes evidenced in tree rings. 111.2
119.6
107.9

91.3 69.1
100.3
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
300 Block
(n=13)
400 Block
(n=13)
500 Block
(n=11)
600 Block
(n=7)
700 Block
(n=9)
800 Block
(n=4)
Circumference (inches)
Average Tree Circumference
by Block East Anapamu St
Chart 1. Average Tree Circumferences show reduced size in the areas near Santa Barbara High School, suggesting those blocks may require special attention Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 21 of 79 Nevertheless, the Doremus-planted trees (1908) and Stevens-planted trees (1929) flourished enough through 1997 to create a lush canopy. It is unknown to us if the trees received supplemental watering in addition to natural rainfall.

In 2014 based on reported success in Los Angeles, the City Department of Parks and Recreation requested and received a $14,560 grant from the Pearl Chase Society to purchase above-ground plastic reservoirs to be placed near at-risk trees. (Rae, C., 2014a, 2014b; de Forest, K., 2014) Known as “Irricades,” an important incentive was the reduction in department employee time needed to hand-water the trees. Each Irricade could be filled at fewer intervals and supply water slowly via standard irrigation tubing.

At the time, this was an excellent attempt to ameliorate an environmental factor that was adversely affecting the trees. The Department of Parks and Recreation is to be commended for seeking a special treatment for landmarked trees that might be unavailable to standard street trees.

In the absence of detailed monitoring of the affected trees (which may have been performed, but unavailable to us), the true or potential success of the Irricade Chart 3. Annual Santa Barbara Rainfall, 1900-2021. <https://bit.ly/3Z4U2B3> Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 22 of 79 program is unknown. There may be an irrefutable argument that tree loss would have been much greater without the Irricades.

At the beginning of our observation period, many Irricades stood empty and others had broken irrigation tubing that defeated their slow drip irrigation function. A comment from a reliable longtime resident/owner on East Anapamu Street (personal communication during one of our inventory visits) was that his nearby Irricade had not been filled since 2019.

As of September 22, 2023, Irricades that a decade
ago were considered a promising solution to
drought conditions (and for which the City
Department of Parks and Recreation sought and
received over $14,000 in a private donation to
purchase) along East Anapamu Street, were
deemed no longer useful and were removed to be
recycled as scrap. It is unclear if the irrigation
tubing once attached to each Irricade will also be
removed.

2. Street Conditions. As noted in the History
section, there have been several major street projects that affected the entire stand of trees in 1943, 1953, 1968, 1982, and 1986, including curbs, gutters, paving, and sidewalk construction. In addition, there must have been uncounted numbers of infrastructure-related actions that involved individual trees. Each of these impacted the growth patterns of the trees and the resultant canopy.

As is well documented here in Santa Barbara and elsewhere (Glenn, B. 2017) mature Italian Stone Pines with full natural canopies are top-heavy. Leaning trees put extra stress on root structures, which can disrupt fixed improvements like nearby walls and sidewalks. Early arborist-supervised pruning of specific upper tree limbs can delay or prevent disruptions at the ground level. In contrast, poor active management may result in substantial root burls requiring direct surgery that can doom the tree.

A typical impermeable street pavement prevents natural rainfall from entering a tree’s root bed. In addition, the standard dome cross-section of street paving channels water into gutters and drains, further preventing any natural root irrigation. What passive water may make it to a tree’s roots undoubtedly contains Photo 2 showing City truck loaded
with Irricades headed for recycling,
September 22, 2023
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 23 of 79 dissolved vehicle contaminants from exhaust, tire debris, and leaked lubricants and petroleum products.

The cumulative effects of water reduction,
contamination, and root pruning can pose
insurmountable hurdles for tree growth.

3. Inappropriate Tree Crown Pruning.

While inappropriate limb and root pruning
will have insidious negative effects on the
trees, the practice of pruning out the
center of a mature tree’s crown is both
visually ugly and potentially deadly to the
tree. The most egregious examples appear
to be due to valuing overhead utility lines,
which can be rerouted, over the health of
immovable trees in their path. Examples are shown in Photos 3 and 4 of nonlandmarked trees in Santa Barbara. Photo 5 shows a tree within the protected Doremus Pine Trees landmark that also has had the most sustaining part of any tree’s canopy – the apex – pruned to avoid power lines.

Photo 3 shows an Italian Stone Pine on North
Quarantina St near Santa Barbara Junior High
School severely pruned to avoid power lines Photo 4 shows a Rubber Tree (according to GeoCortex MAPS) at 425 North Quarantina St
with same crown pruning to avoid power lines
Photo 5 shows a member of the Doremus Pine
Trees landmark at 814 East Anapamu St with
crown pruned to avoid power lines
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 24 of 79 E. Examples of Local Success
Much has been made about the unsuitability of Santa Barbara’s urban landscape for Italian Stone Pines. In response, we found a similar, though not identical, City block of the species that is much healthier than the protected, landmarked trees on East Anapamu Street. The Italian Stone Pines on the
700 block of North Quarantina Street have two
distinct advantages not available to East Anapamu
Street. First, there may be subterranean water there,
which necessitates the use of interlocking pavers on
the full width of the block. Second are those same
pavers that allow natural precipitation to reach the
tree root systems. Nevertheless, this block is an
example of thriving trees on one side and stressed
trees on the side where their crowns have been
trimmed to accommodate powerlines. The
inescapable message is that Pinus pinea L. can live
and thrive here in Santa Barbara given the right
environment and care.

Photos 6 and 7 show the ends of the block on North Quarantina St. It is obvious the trees do well on one side and are thining on the other side that has been pruned to accept powerlines.

Photo 8. Pinus pinea L at 322
Castillo Street
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 25 of 79 In addition, at least one other small stand of Italian Stone Pines grows vigorously in its semi-natural state at 322 Castillo Street. (Photo 7) F. Examples of Outside Success
With a dual purpose, we searched for other nearby examples where Italian Stone Pines are successfully grown and, second, if those trees receive local acknowledgement, protection, or care. We hoped to learn how other cities deal with the aesthetic features and inherent liabilities of Pinus pinea. We wanted to know how they manage their trees and the results of those efforts. Could there be anything that would aid or guide Santa Barbara’s efforts? The number and popularity of instructive online arborist videos made clear the common presence of the trees from Santa Clara County (Glenn, 2010, 2014, 2017; Hurlburt, 2020) in the San Francisco Bay Area, to Los Angeles County south of us (Knowlton, 2012).

We found a better and closer example in Lompoc.

On August 24, we visited Lompoc to inspect their notable stand of Italian Stone Pines. We discussed the current status of their landmarked trees with staff at the nearby Lompoc Museum, housed in the 1911 Carnegie Library designed by William Weeks. Their trees – flanking the roadway of the 200-400 blocks of South H Street – were planted as a Boy Scout project beginning in the 1930s. (Anon. 2016) Their trees were acknowledged with a bronze plaque from 1997, the same year our trees were landmarked. Sixty trees exist today and they look much healthier than most of ours. To ensure adequate water for the pines during drought conditions, Lompoc employs mobile irrigation. There is no obvious infestation of bark beetles. Still, as part of their active attention to the trees, they are preparing to replace more than a dozen. In 2009 a walking tour of them proclaimed, “They’re frequently referred to as the ‘best kept grove’ of Italian Stone Pines in the West Photo 9. Bronze Marker provided by
Leadership Lompoc Valley, 1997
Photo 10. Canopies of Lompoc's Italian
Stone Pines
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 26 of 79 [ouch!] and they provide a beautiful shady setting for the historic homes in this area. The city’s urban forestry division certainly takes pride in these trees.” (Fink, R., 2021) (emphasis supplied)
The City of Lompoc maintains an ongoing inventory of their trees (Anon., 2017b), which could serve as a model for Santa Barbara. It is updated biannually and includes measurements and estimates of DBH, drip line, height, health, crown, roots trunk, risk condition, and mitigation options. Their Urban Forestry web page includes full copies of arborist reports on their trees going back a dozen years.

G. Government Supremacy: State vs. State?
Our current inquiries and earlier explanations by City staff have suggested the ruinous pruning of mature landmarked Italian Stone Pines has been performed by a utility company to protect overhead high voltage wiring, over which the City has no control or authority. That has been considered a de facto practice existing in reality not officially recognized – to our knowledge – by law or other formal norms. We invite a reconsideration, even a challenge, of that position.

In 1959 Assembly Bill 2832 established California Government Code Section 37361, giving cities the authority to define and protect their historically important features, notably including “special conditions or regulations for their protection, enhancement, perpetuation or use.” Santa Barbara was among the first – if not the very first – community to take action and established our El Pueblo Viejo Historic District in 1960. Our general question would be whether state authorization of a utility company to maintain its infrastructure (if that authority can be established) conflicts with state authorization of cities to maintain their historic features (which is well-founded). Several points are important:
• The overall form of Italian Stone Pines (Pinus pinea L.) is of a substantial central trunk supporting a wide crown of growth, giving the species the common name of “umbrella tree”
• Healthy growth of Italian Stone Pines occurs in the upper crown of a tree, which develops into a wide, top-heavy canopy
• The broad, mature canopy of the trees on East Anapamu Street is the character-defining feature of the landmark
• Mature trees, particularly those in our urban environment, have extensive root structures that normally would support the canopy if not inhibited by water reduction due to surrounding paving and pruning to address sidewalk and street surface disruptions
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 27 of 79 • Pruning the most active growth area of any plant, combined with pruning its supporting root structure creates double-ended stresses that can lead to retarded growth, impaired health, with subsequent secondary disease and insect infestation leading to death and creating a public hazard for tumbling unexpectedly
• Supported by these arguments, we contend utility service features must be diverted around the immobile trees
• The prevailing utility argument cannot be “it’s too expensive for us to do it another way,” when applied to a protected historic feature.

H. Governance of Self-Owned Historic Properties

1. Historic Landmarks Commission. City Landmarks are officially designated by City Council resolution that typically comes from a recommendation by HLC. If and when those recommended properties are officially designated, they come under the continuing oversight and purview of the HLC.

City Council Resolution No. 97-131 reports the August 6, 1997, recommendation from HLC was without dissent. The Minutes of the October 7, 1997, City Council meeting, Item 46, (City Clerk’s Office, TRIMS Index/Text Information Listing, pp. 2597-99) record that comments were made (presumed in favor) by City Urban Historian Christine Palmer and City Arborist Dan Condon. No Council or public dissent to landmarking the Doremus Pine Trees is recorded and the trees came under the immediate purview of HLC.

Any understood collaboration between HLC and the Parks Department in 1997 for the ongoing care, management, and oversight of the trees is unknown. It may be inferred that there were expectations in both directions that may not have been met when, at the September 11, 2013, meeting of HLC (Anon., 2013, video resource) City Urban Forest Supervisor Tim Downey gave a report on the condition and health of the trees. Mr. Downey stated the trees were cared for under the 1977 Street Tree Master Plan that was due for revision into the 2014 Urban Forest Master Plan. To its credit, HLC members were dissatisfied with the report.

Although the meeting occurred a decade ago, it is alarming to realize it could have been recorded last week. The participants have mostly changed, the faces were younger then, but the issues are identical!
All suggestions by HLC members at that meeting were met with skepticism by City staff and the all-too-common excuse of insufficient funding or staff. We have Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 28 of 79 not followed the aftermath of that 2013 meeting to see if the Urban Forest Supervisor or the Department of Parks and Recreation complied with HLC requests and suggestions, e.g., 1) deep-water irrigation, 2) semipermeable paving nearby and at the trees’ driplines, 3) prior notice to the Commission before a landmark tree must be removed and the subsequent plan for its replacement, and 4) engaging nearby property owners to water the trees. Because the identical issues remain a decade later, the unavoidable conclusion is that no Commission comments were honestly pursued.

The comments of one Commissioner were particularly germane as they apply today. These trees are a designated landmark, no less than a designated landmark building. It is a prime responsibility of HLC to monitor and protect landmarks, whatever their form. The comparisons between landmark considerations for living versus architectural landmarks are stark.
• Would the Commission allow a landmark building’s foundation to be modified or partially removed to facilitate vehicular or pedestrian access? Root pruning of the trees is the analogous situation and occurs with unsupervised regularity.
• Would the Commission allow a landmark building’s roof or upper structure be modified to prevent interference with overhead utilities? Of course not, yet there are many examples of these landmark trees having their canopies severely pruned.
• Would the Commission (or the City, generally) stand for a private owner making disfiguring or historically inappropriate modifications to a landmark building without notice or consideration by the Commission? One would hope not.

The HLC seems not to have a plan that offers guidance or direction to the Parks and Recreation Department about caring for living landmarks within its purview.

Such a written, explicit plan should reflect the preservation knowledge base of the Commission and clarify the desired reporting requirements for diseased or hazardous living landmarks. Recently, the National Trust for Historic Places published a valuable article with advice dealing with documentation of historic resources (you never know when they will be severely damaged or destroyed, so why wait?) Almost all the points could be applied to living landmarks that are at more frequent risk than architectural structures. (White, M., 2023)

2. Department of Parks and Recreation. It seems clear the Department of Parks and Recreation, from its 2013 report and to this day, considers the landmark Doremus Pine Trees to be “street trees” with no special duty to provide additional Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 29 of 79 measures of substance, a prospective plan of care, or preventative maintenance.

The inference from their actions is that a failing tree is watched until it is near death or becomes a public safety issue when the Department Director has authority to dispatch the tree without permit or prior notice to HLC or the public.

A prior Urban Forest Supervisor created a list of the City’s historic and specimen trees, all of which come under the purview of HLC (Downey, T., n.d.). The list includes nine tree landmarks, with the Doremus Pine Trees having by far the greatest number of specimens. The list of landmark trees includes Lemon Scented Eucalyptus (Corymbia citriodora) at the Public Library, which has either five trees (the Downey list) or thirteen trees (2012 landmarks designation staff report). The rest of the landmarked trees are singletons and seem to receive sustainable care, which raises the possibility that Parks and Recreation staff are not sufficiently trained to care for a large stand of trees.

Worse, the Department of Parks and Recreation seems unclear or conflicted on its responsibility to carry out a decree from the City’s most senior deliberative body, i.e., the City Council. A Council Resolution, such as one that designates historic properties as landmarks, carries with it the public promise and the authority to protect the designee for the enjoyment of future generations. Such a resolution expresses the will of the City’s only elected officials; they are the voice of citizens within City government. How does it respect that voice of the people and the value of a historic property not to give it special attention for immediate problems, and also prospective planned care for continued vitality?
In 2013, the HLC received a report from the Parks and Recreation Department’s Urban Forest Supervisor that distilled down to 1) there has been prolonged drought over which we have no control, 2) there are planned roadway and sidewalk improvements over which we have no control, 3) there are utility provider mandates over which we have no control. These things weaken the trees and make them vulnerable to diseases and infestations over which we have no control.

Finally, the trees struggle and fail until they become public hazards and a situation arises over which we have control: We remove the trees.

The Department of Parks and Recreation’s 2014 Urban Forest Management Plan (Anon., 2014a) states on page 18, “The HLC’s purview includes species selection, placement, and preservation of trees on properties within HLC’s jurisdiction. ...

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 30 of 79 The HLC can recommend trees to City Council for Historic designation and reviews all historic and specimen trees subject to removal.” (emphasis supplied)① Recently, on March 1, 2023, the City Council designated the State Street Parkway between Mission Street and Constance Avenue to be a landmark that includes 22 mature Pindo Palm trees. The Parkway is comprised of 12 islands, each originally having two palms. Two of the islands now have only a single palm. We will follow the progress of that latest landmark. Will the Department of Parks & Recreation plant new palms where there were none at the date of landmarking? Will replaced trees be “like for like,” i.e., approximately as mature as the removed landmarked specimen or an inappropriate youngster? Will the trees be allowed to decline until they are at risk of falling and are cut down without public notice or HLC alert? In an effort to learn if the Urban Forest Program includes ongoing and prospective management of the Doremus Pine Trees, we emailed the current Urban Forest Supervisor. The exchange (Appendix D) suggests there has been no organized regular effort to monitor these trees in the past and no plans to establish such a program. The anticipated assessment will be sporadic and ad hoc.

I. Government Self-Responsibility: City vs. City?
Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 30.300.080 “H”, defines “demolition” and “demolition by neglect” of historic resources.
“With regard to a historic resource the term ‘demolition’ shall also include the removal of a significant component or a character defining element. “Demolition by Neglect. A situation in which a property owner(s) through neglect and lack of maintenance allows a historic resource or character defining feature of a historic resource to suffer severe deterioration, potentially beyond the point of repair.”
①On August 12, 2023, we filed a public records request (OneRequest, PRR-2023-00119) for “Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes between January 1, 2018, and August 1, 2023, containing the words *Anapamu* or *Doremus*” hoping to find some evidence the trees’ condition had been followed and reported to HLC as described in the Urban Forest Management Plan. No records were found by that search.

Subsequently, we submitted an informal question to a longtime HLC member if there was any memory of a status report being made by the Department of Parks and Recreation to HLC regarding the Doremus Pine Trees Landmark. The reply was a terse, “No, never.” Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 31 of 79 Chapter 30.157.170 lays out the nature of the violations, civil penalties, and other remedies that could apply to a private owner and might also apply to a governmental agency or department, which would be a curious situation. Certainly, it is a poor example that might suggest a different standard of enforcement by the City against private owners of designated historic properties and against the City, itself.

Santa Barbara’s Municipal Code Chapter 30 defines “demolition” and “demolition by neglect” of designated historic structures including landmarks, as well as civil penalties for those violations. Our investigation did not extend to explore actions taken under those codes, but we expect they were written with private owners in mind. We applaud such definitions, enforcements, and penalties. Several questions arise that require consideration, if not clear answers. • How is it handled if the City, itself, is the owner of a landmarked property suffering demolition or demolition by neglect?
• Do those same enforcements and penalties apply?
• What is the City’s responsibility and process to enforce its Municipal Codes internally?
• Certainly, there exists a responsibility for this city - which prides itself for a historic past and a livable ambience - to be an exemplar that citizens and property owners can view for guidance. Does that responsibility extend to self-enforcements for corrective or punitive action?
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 32 of 79

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
“When local residents hear the words ‘Stone Pine,’ they instantly think of the massive trees on Anapamu Street that, for many years, formed a continuous arboreal canopy over the roadway from Milpas Street to Garden Street.”
SOURCE: Anon. (2019)
We request that the City department, commission, or agency entrusted with the oversight, planning, maintenance, or care of the Doremus Pine Trees Landmark, consider each of these constructive recommendations for implementation.

Internal Procedure

1. First and foremost, require all staff and employees to understand these trees – individually and as a collective stand – are landmarked specimens with special protection conferred by the City Council resolution. They are not routine street trees and must not be treated as such. If they ever were routine street trees, that changed in 1997 when they were landmarked by the City Council. As a landmark, they must be protected and maintained even when other street trees are failing.

2. Follow the procedures outlined in the 2014 Urban Forest Management Plan, whereby the status of landmarked trees (these and others) are regularly reported to the Historic Landmarks Commission for review and concurrence.

3. Acknowledge that the 1997 landmark document might have fallen short by not specifying greater detail on expected care or maintenance of the trees.

Correct that deficiency by establishing now expectations for ongoing maintenance and surveillance. That might involve a reassessment of other living landmarks including the recent State Street Parkway landmark with its character-defining feature of Pindo Palm trees.

Landmark Status

4. Consider this City Historic Landmark of living trees in the same way that landmarked built structures are considered, i.e., with regular documented surveillance and preventive maintenance, including biannual photographs of each tree from a consistent reference point for subsequent comparison.

5. Discover within existing or create new specific guidelines for oversight/management by HLC of living landmarks.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 33 of 79

6. Designate the landscape architect member of HLC to be the Commission’s assigned overseer of living landmarks with specific responsibility as liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Street Trees Advisory Committee.

7. Consider requiring any agenda item of the Street Trees Advisory Committee relating to properties overseen by HLC to be alerted by staff in advance to HLC.

8. Consider using the National Park Service, Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS), standards for documentation
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-07-21/pdf/03-18197.pdf) of individual trees or collective groves or stands designated as landmarks by the City Council.

9. Recognize that a character-defining feature of this landmark is its broad, continuous, and long canopy. As such, the canopy health and maintenance is as important as each individual specimen tree’s health and maintenance.

To allow the canopy to fail is to ignore the prime objective of a preservation ordinance and the City Council landmark resolution.

10. Consider adding the estimated expenses of maintaining a living landmark into HLC’s designation discussion and into any Landmark recommendation to City Council.

11. Recognize there are expenses entailed with maintaining a living landmark, which must be equated to the conservation expenses of a landmark structure. Such expenses might be above and beyond those associated with other similar assets, such as routine street trees.

12. Develop a plan for “Documenting Historic Details Before They Disappear,” composed by the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Parks and Recreation Department, to outline required steps to preserve the historical record of living landmarks. Examples of noteworthy characteristics of historic resources, practical documentation processes, and relevant Department of the Interior standards are discussed in White, M. (2023).

13. If, despite efforts to rescue a failing tree, it must be removed, require the process to be publicly noticed similar to that for a project involving an existing park or recreation facility (SBMC Chap 30.40.050) with mailed notice to property owners closer than 100 feet and posted notices on the involved block of East Anapamu Street every 150 feet. The Historic Landmarks Commission must be notified before sacrifice of a still-living tree or final destruction and removal of a dead tree in compliance with the Urban Forest Management Plan. An advertised public meeting to explain Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 34 of 79 the reasons for removal and answer tree questions – similar to the example from the City of Lompoc – would also benefit the community.

14. Develop a “post mortem” procedure for living landmarks that must be followed to preserve their historical record. In the case of landmarked trees, the procedure should include written and photographic records of the tree immediately prior to cutting. The cutting process should be done in a manner that allows accurate tree ring counting to estimate the age of the tree, which becomes part of its record. For example,
a. After any dangerous or precarious upper limbs and branches are removed, cut the trunk horizontally at approximately Breast Height (BH, 4.5 feet). Measure the diameter at the widest point. b. Count and photograph the tree rings exposed by the BH cut to determine the tree’s age. If the ring count suggests the tree is among the original plantings in 1908 or 1929, consider the final cut stump to be marked with a memorial plaque, perhaps similar to those currently installed on live Italian Stone Pines by Santa Barbara Beautiful. It is anticipated the direct stump site and close root mass may not be suitable for planting a new tree immediately. Implement appropriate procedures that may be suggested by White, M. (2003)

15. Develop public signage within City standards and through the Sign Committee at each intersection of the six blocks of East Anapamu Street, which define the landmark. See the photograph of a basic suggestion in Appendix E. Exact wording to be determined by the City Architectural Historian with Historic Landmarks Commission concurrence and should plainly alert every driver or pedestrian entering the six blocks of the landmark area of its special status.

16. Develop an approved template and install signage at each individual landmarked tree, as currently done for some singleton landmarked trees.

Practical Management

17. Develop a system of surveillance, perhaps using an example from material we have presented, to catalog all trees (not just identified “problem” trees) on a regular scheduled basis, no less than biannually (every other year) and document critical aspects of tree appearance and health including, but not limited to, trunk circumference at breast height, notations of significant changes (good or bad) in the trees’ conditions, and points for specific follow-up. Examples of regular reports by certified arborists are included in this report for reference. The reports of this surveillance should be available publicly online, similar to those available in the neighboring City of Lompoc.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 35 of 79

18. Develop a stepped, pro-active mitigation plan of actions for trees that appear to be struggling, including reasonable plans for rescue, not just observation of progressive decline and death. Ultimate tree removal must not surprise staff, commissioners, or the public. There must have been several/many reasonable and documented measures instituted in timely advance prior to any consideration of removal.

19. Strive to provide similar replacement trees for those removed, like-for-like, remembering that the character-defining canopy takes decades to repair after loss of a mature tree. Providing replacement saplings is not acceptable. In the event that a residual stump or dead root structure makes tree replacement in the same place impossible, the replacement tree should be planted – with HLC approval and in accordance with the original landmarking documentation – nearby to best preserve the overall canopy.

20. Maintain each tree individually in a healthy state, while acknowledging the character-defining feature of the landmark is the canopy that spreads the full width of East Anapamu Street and which must be maintained in a healthy state as well. The trees must be surveyed longitudinally in time, not episodically or in “snapshot” fashion as we have done.

21. Require the Urban Forest Supervisor or other certified arborist – as part of the regular scheduled surveillance of the trees – to oversee any pruning necessary for the ongoing health of each tree and the canopy, regardless of the agency or department doing the prune.

22. Require that pruning of the trees – by any City agency or other operator – be done according to the latest guidelines from the American National Standards Institute (currently ANSI A300 (Part 1) available from the American Society of Consultant Arborists, www.asca-consultants.org).

Special oversight at the tree location by the City Urban Forest Supervisor or designee may be necessary during the pruning process if performed by outside agencies with histories of improper tree care.

23. Require, in the event of an outside agency pruning the trees, the pruning process to be planned and actively overseen by a certified arborist at the tree site.

24. Focus especially on care of the trees of the 700 block, which seem to be smaller than on other blocks. This results in degradation of the landmark’s character defining feature, its once-lush canopy.

Legal Issues

25. Request a review by the City Attorney of the 1997 Council Resolution landmark documentation that might place restrictions on Doremus Pine Tree management. Specifically,
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 36 of 79 a. Does the inclusion of a list of APNs restrict landmark status to only trees planted on those precise parcels at the time of landmarking? b. Are trees currently planted on APNs not listed in the original landmark resolution included as landmarks?
c. Does the landmark status apply only to the 79 original trees, or also to their specific replacements in the same location or APN? d. Is the landmark defined by specific blocks that would allow any Italian stone pine planted in the parkway on those specific blocks be included within landmark status and future protection?
e. Do enforcement mechanisms, seemingly codified with private owners in mind, apply also to agencies within the City? If not, why not? Specific enforcement examples for examination include “demolition” and “demolition by neglect” of historic landmarked properties. f. Is there binding case law establishing the will of a public utility company to supersede the will of a local legislative body to protect and maintain a preexisting historic landmark? Specifically, does the City of Santa Barbara, acting within authority granted by California Government Code 37361(b) to “provide for places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects, having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value, special conditions or regulations for their protection, enhancement, perpetuation or use, which may include appropriate and reasonable control of the use or appearance of neighboring private property within public view, or both” (emphasis supplied) supersede authority of a public utility such as Southern California Edison Company in pruning decisions for trees properly designated as landmarks?
For the Future

26. Investigate new paradigms and procedures to maintain the landmark trees. a. Strongly consider giving priority to the landmark trees over street pavement and sidewalk improvements. Do not trim their roots; instead plan urban hardscape around the trees’natural growth.
b. Consider the use of semipermeable interlocking pavers over intermittent stretches of those six blocks of East Anapamu Street to allow better root access to precipitation. An example is the 700 block of North Quarantina Street, acknowledging subterranean conditions may be very different.
c. Consider a legal challenge to the supposed supremacy of Southern California Edison Company to prune preexisting landmark trees when Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 37 of 79 they conflict with power lines. Consider the power lines as interfering with the natural growth of the trees and require them to be rerouted.

27. Establish a collaboration with local arborists and staff in nearby cities having Italian stone pines to compare management plans, successes to emulate, and failures to avoid.

28. Establish a collaboration with local academic institutions that might benefit from the Doremus Pine Trees landmark specifically, and City street trees generally, as sites for field study and student projects.

29. Engage outside consultants for specialty advice on tree care or pest management.

30. Consider submitting the City landmark stand of Doremus Pine Trees to be included in the Historic American Landscape Survey. (Anon. (n.d.-b) and Robinson, J.H. et al. (2005)) in collaboration with the Southern California Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects < https://socalasla.org/hals/>.

And Others

31. Consider for implementation other recommendations that may arise at the suggestion of City staff, Commissioners, or members of the public during subsequent discussions and deliberations regarding maintenance and preservation of the Doremus Pine Trees landmark.

REFERENCES
(All of these are available in printed PDF or online as part of this report) “The Italian stone pines that provide a verdant canopy over Santa Barbara’s East Anapamu Street will be fewer in number this week after municipal crews remove four of the majestic trees.” (The text of this article mentions 81 trees)
SOURCE: Cooper L. (2014)
Acer, S., Arslangündogdu, Z., Hizal, E., & Kumbasli, M. (2021). Relationships between bark beetle diversity and habitat characteristics in pine forests of south Marmara Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 19(1), 263–277.

Anon. (2014a). Urban Forest Management Plan. City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department (adopted 4/8/2014). <https://bit.ly/3YLiAPf> accessed 8/21/14.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 38 of 79 Anon. (2014b). Historic Santa Barbara Pine Trees to be Cut Down. KEYT.com (Oct 24). <https://bit.ly/3Z4yTqG> accessed 8/13/23.

Anon. (2015-a). How to determine the age of a tree. TheLivingUrn.com 2015 (Dec 7). <https://bit.ly/3Z4bB48> accessed 8/23/23.

Anon. (2015-b). HABS/HAER/HALS Photography Guidelines. www.nps.gov. <https://bit.ly/NPS_Photo_Guidelines> accessed 6/5/2024.

Anon. (2016). Italian Stone Pines. The Historical Marker Database 2016 (Jun 16). <https://bit.ly/3Zf5qus> accessed 9/10/23.

Anon. (2017a). South H St. Italian Stone Pines Public Meeting Announcement.

City of Lompoc 2017 (Oct 26) <https://bit.ly/3sBakp4> accessed 9/1/23.

Anon. (2017b). Italian Stone Pines 200-400 Blks S. H St Inventory. City of Lompoc 2017 (Nov 10) <https://bit.ly/44OebwD> accessed 9/10/23.

Anon. (2018). How to tell the difference between spruce, fir and pine trees.

Mrtreeservices.com 2018 (Feb 27) <https://bit.ly/45X6zZI> accessed 8/21/23.

Anon. (2019). Stone Pine. Santa Barbara Beautiful 2019 (Dec 1). <https://bit.ly/3P6PdTd> accessed 8/13/23
Anon. (2023). Santa Barbara - Annual Rainfall (Stn #234) 1900-2022.

Countyofsb.org. <https://bit.ly/3Z4U2B3> accessed 9/1/23.

Anon. (n.d.-a). Stone pine, a majestic conifer. www.nature-and-garden.com. <https://bit.ly/3LcUWWF> accessed 8/24/23.

Anon. (n.d.-b). Historic American Landscape Survey Brochure. www.nps.gov. <https://bit.ly/3sHKcsM> accessed 9/5/23.

Anon. (n.d.-c). Landscape Lines 12: Treatment of Plant Features. www.nps.gov. <https://bit.ly/NPS_Treatment_of_Plant_Features> accessed 6/5/2024.

Bear, K., Glenn, B. (n.d.). Italian Stone Pine. City of Saratoga Information Page. <https://bit.ly/3Rhwt62> accessed 9/3/23.

Berry C. (2008). Italian Stone Pines on Anapamu Street. Cartas 2008 (Aug 13) <https://bit.ly/45EROLi> accessed 8/13/23
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 39 of 79 Blaettler, K. G. (2020). Pine Tree Diameter Vs. Age. Home and Garden. <https://bit.ly/3sJdCH7> accessed 8/15/23.

Cooper L. (2014). Santa Barbara Says Goodbye to 4 Historic Italian Stone Pine Trees on Anapamu Street. Noozhawk 2014 (Oct 26). <https://bit.ly/45ET6po> accessed 8/13/23
Costello, L. R., Tso, J., & Jones, K. S. (2015a). Structural failure profile: Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea). Western Arborist, (Fall), 44–47.

Costello, L. R., Tso, J., & Jones, K. S. (2015b, April 6). Structural Failure Profile:

Italian Stone Pine. www.thebrittonfund.org. <https://bit.ly/3LdbAVR> accessed 8/22/23.

De Forest, K. (2014). Preservation Watch: Italian Stone Pines. The Capital; Newsletter of the Pearl Chase Society. December, p 2.

Downey, T. (n.d.). Historic and Specimen Trees. Urban Forest Program. Dept.

Parks & Recreation. City of Santa Barbara. <https://bit.ly/3RjpQ3c> accessed 9/13/23.

Elwes, H. J., & Henry, A. (1910). Pinus pinea, Stone Pine. In The Trees of Great Britain & Ireland (Vol. 5, pp. 1119–1125). Edinburgh: Privately Printed.

Fernandez, D. (2022). 3000 Bowers Avenue Office Project. CEQA.opr.ca.gov 2022 (Feb 8) <https://bit.ly/3R673sf> accessed 8/20/23.

Fink, R. (2021). Stone Pines in Lompoc Unique (Editorial). Lompocrecord.com 2021 (orig Nov 9, 2009, updated May17, 2021) <https://bit.ly/3Rac56Z> accessed 9/5/23.

Fink, R. (2023). Lompoc Italian Stone Pines – Beauty and Danger (Opinion).

Noozhawk.com 2023 (Jul 4) <https://bit.ly/3r598Kn> accessed 9/5/23.

Groover, A (2017, June) Age-related Changes in Tree Growth and Physiology. In:
eLS. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com 2017 (Jun) <https://bit.ly/485dstO> accessed 8/20/23.

Kielty, K. (2020, April 20). Arborist Report. 3000 Bowers Avenue Office Project.

CEQA.opr.ca.gov 2020 (Apr 20). <https://bit.ly/3R673sf> Appendix B. pp. 1- 16, accessed 8/20/23.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 40 of 79 Leak, W. B. (1985). Relationships of tree age to diameter in old-growth northern hardwoods and spruce-fir. www.fs.usda.gov 1985. <https://bit.ly/3sHCjUa> accessed 8/22/23.

Loewe-Muñoz, V., Delard, C., Del Rio, R., & Balzarini, M. (2020). Long-term effect of fertilization on stone pine growth and cone production. Annals of Forest Science 2020 (Jul 8), 77(3). <https://bit.ly/3Eq9w9p> accessed 8/20/23.

Loewe, V., & Delard, C. (2017). Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.): an interesting species for agroforestry in Chile. Agroforestry Systems 2017, 93(2), 703– 713. <https://bit.ly/483i9Eb> accessed 8/16/23.

Rae, C. (2013). Mike Pahos interview in, Pearl Chase: First Lady of Santa Barbara. Olympus Press, Santa Barbara CA, p. 73.

Rae, C. (2014a). Society News and Notes: Speaking for the Trees. The Capital; Newsletter of the Pearl Chase Society. October, p 1.

Rae, C. (2014b). Society News and Notes. The Capital; Newsletter of the Pearl Chase Society. November, p 1.

Richardson, D. M., (ed.). (1998). Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus: Pinus pinea. ConiferSociety.org; Cambridge University Press.
<https://bit.ly/3Ldclyb> accessed 8/20/23.

Robinson, J.H., Vernon, N.D., & Lavoie, C.C. (2005). Guidelines for Historical Reports. Historic American Landscapes Survey. National Park Service. U.S.

Department of the Interior. <https://bit.ly/3qSc25e> accessed 9/5/23.

Smith, S. (2015, February). Bark Beetles in California Conifers. U.S. Department of Agriculture Publ. R5-PR-033. www.fs.usda.gov 2015 (Feb) <https://bit.ly/45GhQxy> accessed 8/30/23.

Toromani, E., Pasho, E., Alla, A. Q., Mine, V., & Çollaku, N. (2015). Radial growth responses of Pinus halepensis Mill. and Pinus pinea L. forests to climate variability in Western Albania. Geochronometria 2015 (May 5), 42(1). <https://bit.ly/44F46SG> accessed 8/20/23.

Welsh, N. (2019). Stone Pines Distressed by Drought. Santa Barbara Independent 2019 (Sep 1). <https://bit.ly/3raFlQl> accessed 8/13/23 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 41 of 79 White, M. (2023).6 Tips for Documenting Historic Details Before They Disappear. www.savingplaces.org 2023 (Jul 7) <https://bit.ly/45CDmn1> accessed 8/25/23.

VIDEO RESOURCES
“The canopy of 90 historic stone pine trees that so dramatically define a five-block stretch of East Anapamu Street is currently under serious stress by the state’s prolonged drought.” (Notice the mention of 90 trees.) SOURCE: Welsh, N. (2019)
Anon. (2013). Italian Stone Pine Trees Status/Update. Historic Landmarks Commission meeting, Item 1 (video span 15:40 – 50:00), City of Santa Barbara (September 11).<https://youtu.be/6YWbk_YaAqQ> accessed 9/12/23.

Anon. (2018). Italian Stone Pine trimming begins in Lompoc. KSBY News 2018 (April 10). <https://bit.ly/3PsnSfB> accessed 9/5/23.

Corral, C. (2018). Lompoc leaders invite public to discuss future of Italian stone pine trees. KSBY.com <https://bit.ly/3Ps2044> accessed 9/3/23.

Glenn, B. (2010). How Safe is my Tree? www.youtube.com
<https://bit.ly/47ZTRel> accessed 9/1/23.

Glenn, B. (2014). Hazard Stone Pines. Assessing Stone Pines for Pruning. www.youtube.com <https://bit.ly/3EsO03O> accessed 9/1/23.

Glenn, B. (2017). Stone Pine Failing. Diagnosis and Pruning. www.youtube.com <https://bit.ly/44FlLt9> accessed 8/22/23.

Hurlburt, B. (2020) Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea). www.youtube.com <https://bit.ly/3P93bny> accessed 8/19/23.

Knowlton, G. (2012) Typical Branch Failure of the Italian Stone Pine. www.youtube.com <https://bit.ly/3Pp9UuW> accessed 9/5/23.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 42 of 79 Knowlton, G. (2014). Covering Exposed Roots on an Italian Stone Pine. www.youtube.com <https://bit.ly/44GbYmH> accessed 9/2/23.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 43 of 79 Appendix A: City Council Resolution No. 97-131
This document with supporting information designated the Italian Stone Pine trees planted on the 300-800 blocks of East Anapamu Street to be a City Landmark named the “Doremus Pine Trees.”
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 44 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 45 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 46 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 47 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 48 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 49 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 50 of 79 Appendix B: Doremus Pine Trees: Individual Photographs
During our inventory process, we visited the trees several times. Each tree was photographed as a record primarily to aid our study identification. As such, the photographs often include the tree with an adjacent landmark, e.g., a numbered irricade, or MTD stop, or public signage. The photography process was casual, without regard to getting a consistent perspective or from a particular angle.

Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 51 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 52 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 53 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 54 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 55 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 56 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 57 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 58 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 59 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 60 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 61 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 62 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 63 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 64 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 65 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 66 of 79 Appendix C: Block-by-Block Maps of Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street
Google Maps compared with the Santa Barbara City Geocortex Maps Vegetation>Tree Inventory Layer at https://maps.santabarbaraca.gov/Html5Viewer/Index.html Maps here are reduced in size to fit the page for comparison.

Google Map - 300 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 67 of 79 Google Map - 300 Block
Santa Barbara GeoCortex Map – 300 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 68 of 79 Google Map - 400 Block
Santa Barbara GeoCortex Map – 400 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 69 of 79 Google Map - 500 Block
Santa Barbara GeoCortex Map – 500 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 70 of 79 Google Map - 600 Block
Santa Barbara GeoCortex Map – 600 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 71 of 79 Google Map - 700 Block
Santa Barbara GeoCortex Map – 700 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 72 of 79 Google Map - 800 Block
Santa Barbara GeoCortex Map – 800 Block
Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 73 of 79 Appendix D: Urban Forest Supervisor Correspondence
Email correspondence between one of us (RC) and Mr. Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Supervisor, City of Santa Barbara, in April and September 2023 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 74 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 75 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 76 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 77 of 79 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 78 of 79 Appendix E: Entomologist Interim Report, October 3, 2023 Revered Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street at Risk Closson RG, Rae C, Brinkman E October 4, 2023 Page 79 of 79 Appendix F: Possible Street Signage to Denote the Landmark This is a crude example of the sort of appropriate signage that might be considered to denote the boundaries of the landmark. Such a sign attached to existing street sign poles at each intersection along the route of the landmark blocks seems to be simple and relatively inexpensive.

Font, size, and wording to be developed according to HLC and Sign Committee standards.

Appendix: An example of the modest signage that could bring public attention to the historic nature of the trees. Wording could feature their official designation, "Doremus Pine Trees," or the more common "Doremus Italian Stone Pines." Dating could refer to planting or landmarking.

Monday, November 4, 2024
City Clerk's Office
735 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93102

RECEIVED
N;>v - 4

GUY CLERKS OFFICE

SANTA BARBARA, CA
Re: ADDENDUM. Appeal from the Parks & Recreation Commission Decision to designate a new Street Tree on 6 blocks of East Anapamu Street
Dear Councilmembers,
In addition to our letter of October 30, 2024, we wish to add the following grounds for our appeal.

1. As you may note in our initial letter attachment, "The Iconic Italian Stone Pines ofAnapamu Street: A Revered City Landmark at Risk, " we have followed the plight of the trees carefully since 2013 and have never seen mention of environmental review of City actions during that time.

2. To our knowledge, not the Street Tree Advisory Committee (STAG), nor the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), nor the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) have never evaluated proposed changes (including past removals) to the landmarked pines or their current proposed replacement with oaks.

3. Also, to our knowledge, the effective "de-landmarking" through incremental removal of the trees has not been subject to environmental review.

4. It is our understanding that the City has adopted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G questions, as thresholds to determine the significance of a project's impacts. In accordance with the Cultural Resources portion of those Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to historical resources if it would:

E Anapamu St Street Tree Appeal ADDENDUM November 4, 2024 Page 2 of 2 a. Threshold (a): Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource defined in Section 15064.5 [see htt s: bit. l CE A-CultureResources]

5. We believe the City has an obligation to undertake environmental review as required by CEQA and, to date, we have seen no evidence this has occurred.

Thank you for receiving and considering this addendum to our initial appeal.

Sincerely,
Richard Closson
3308 Calle Fresno
Santa Barbara, CA
Cheri Rae
610 East Victoria St
Santa Barbara, CA
Emma Brinkman
1261 FerreloRoad
Santa Barbara, CA
Bruce Reed
150 La Salle Cyn Rd
Lompoc, CA 93436
1/3/2025
To the Santa Barbara City Council
Dear Councilmembers,
The beautiful and majestic allée of trees along Anapamu Street, a lovely arch of deep green canopy, is a gorgeous part of Santa Barbara, a thrilling drive and an attraction to tourists and residents alike. It has been in decline for years. Urbanization, improvements to the street, increased building on all sides and a long-term warming trend have all impacted the performance of the Italian Stone Pines (Pinus pinea) planted. Fortunately, the allée is not dependent on the Stone Pines. Other trees can create the beautiful arch, coexist with the present pines and perform better over time.

The majority of those attending the Street Tree Advisory Committee (STAC) meeting were supportive of new planting, any planting, along Anapamu as the long drought related moratorium on new plantings and the concern over the slow decline of the existing pines has delayed new recruitment, leaving many tree wells vacant. Attendees, largely residents along Anapamu, were strongly aware of the importance in quality of life and property value that a full canopy provides. In trying to imagine another tree which could be planted alongside existing trees that would help in preserving this cathedral-like arch we’ve all come to treasure, no tree seems better suited than the Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia).

Coast Live Oak has the ability to reach 30-40 ft tall and its large, well-supported branches can reach an equal spread out from the trunk. This oak has proven itself as an urban street tree here in Santa Barbara and elsewhere in Southern California. Amenable to growing around hardscapes and rarely lifting walks or concrete, Coast Live Oaks are underused species in our urban forest. Native, even unique, to coastal California, Coast Live Oaks embody a legacy that stretches back perhaps many hundreds of thousands of years, speaking precisely of this place, Central California, and indeed, Santa Barbara. Attractive to wildlife, Coast Live Oaks have the potential to enrich downtown environmentally as well as through its historical legacy.

Importantly for our needs here, the oaks are not only tolerant of restricted rooting zones but also very tolerant of pruning both in youth and old age. Coast Live Oak will come closer to matching the grandeur of the present pines and cope with the restrictions and difficulties of the planting environment along Anapamu than other possibilities.

The City Council was wise enough to landmark the existing individual Stone Pines at the time, leaving the Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission the freedom to adjust to changing conditions. City staff will do all that is possible to keep the surviving landmarked pines alive and healthy. But to preserve the amazing allée along Anapamu, the Council must support the Commission’s reasonable action to change the street tree designation.

Respectfully submitted, Bruce Reed, Chair of STAC

Santa Barbara City CouncilJanuary 14, 2025

Santa Barbara City Council
January 14, 2025