7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is currently undeveloped and is bordered on the west side by the Fairfield Inn & Suites as well as the Candlewood Suites, and to the south by the Reddaway trucking company yard. To the east of the property is undeveloped industrial development and to the north is a County of Santa Barbara flood control channel as well as the Gateway Business Center. Surrounding land uses, general plan designations, and zoning designations are summarized in Table 3 below and are shown in Figures 3 through 6.
Table 3. Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zoning Designations Land uses
General Plan
Designations
Zoning Designations
North
Flood Control
Gateway Business
Center
HCM
HCM
PD/CM
PD/CM
South
Reddaway Trucking
Yard
Light Industrial (LI)
PD/M-1 (Planned
Development/Light
Manufacturing)
East
Undeveloped Parcel
HCM
PD/CM
West
Hotels
CC
PD/C-2
8. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
Agency
Permits/Other Approvals
City of Santa Maria Community
Development Department
Development plan by the Planning Commission
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District
Stationary source Authority to Construct (ATC),
Permit to Operate (PTO) for point sources in
development
9. California Native American Tribes Consultation
AB 52 and SB 18 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects. The City sent letters to the local Native American contacts identified on the list of tribes provided by the NAHC. To date, the City has received no requests for consultation in response to the City's June 13, 2023 letter.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
San Luis
Obispo . ,95,, fi
Carr=
Plain
National
Monument
Delano
Santa
Barbara
if -
j•
Bakersfield
Edwards Air
Force Base
Lancaster
Palmdale
Ridgecresl
MOJA
Victory lie
See Ber
National
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Figure 2.
Project Location Map
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Figure 3.
LEGEND:
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Community Commercial (CC)
IIFreeway Service (FS)
Heavy Commercial/Aanufacturing
(HCM)
i, Light Industrial (LI)
PROJECT
SITE
ROEMER WAY
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Figure 4.
LEGEND:
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Map
IlkCommunity Commerc aI (CC)
Freeway Service (FS)
Heavy Commercial/Manufacturing
(HCM)
ght Industrial (LI)
ROEMER WAY
ROJECT
SITE
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
Environmental Checklist
Figure 5.
Existing Zoning Designation Map
LEGEND:
Planned Development/General Commercial (PD/C-2)
Planned Development/Freeway Services (PD/FS)
Planned Development/Commercial Manufacturing (PD/CM)
Planned Development/Light Manufacturing (PD/M-1)
PD/C-2
PD/C-2
"kOEMER
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
PROJEC
SITE
PD/CM
PD/M-1 PD/CM
PD/C-2
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Figure 6.
Proposed Zoning Designation Map
LEGEND:
Planned Development/General Commercial (PD/C-2)
Planned Development/Freeway Services (PD/FS)
kk Planned Development/Commercial Manufacturing (PD/CM) Planned Development/Light Manufacturing (PD/M-1)
PD/C-2
PD/C-2
PD/FS
PROJECT
SITE
PD/C' PD/CM
ROEM VY
PD/C-2
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Figure 7.
Project Site Plan
KT k'-' - 6f
]' (" WaK %T r--ri'..K {rho_lY A e'.e - RV 3'
4 SY
x x a kcal{ a N R%% ffi Y}%% N Y%%% s x x: a a x x x a a x N x /Via s/ x x x a x x x x x n s s a x a KKKKK KK s K R R N N {4 R R N K N R K N K N S 6 R Y R R R% OKRIPN :K KRKK K K R 14 R K N K R 6 K K K R R N N K R K N N K R R K K N R K R& N R R R% N 1 PINSK KKK K i .16N ge4E RR, N' % E R R N# 1 R R N# f E R N# 1 1 R% N 1 1 R# N S 1 R# Y# E R R N N E R R N N 1 1 R R# S 6 R R K 1 E R K 6 Y S R N N{ 1 1 % % N fI E % % % f E % % % Y S R % N % S 1 % % 1 Y 6 N % 1 1 Y % Y' / f Y % % Y Y Y Y%%% N N R' N Y Y k K% N Y 1% N Y Y Y Y%% N Y K Y% Y Y E%% Y Y'E %% Y Y Y%% N Y E% Y N Y f Y K% Y Y E% S Y Y K Y Y Y Y E S N Y Y S K S Y Y E K Y N Y G44:11%1 =
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
X
b.
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway corridor?
X
c.
In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d.
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
Setting:
The landlocked project site is located within the northern area of the city of Santa Maria to the east of the intersection of Roemer Way and North Broadway. The site is 2.13 acres and is currently vacant.
The site is surrounded by urbanized development and represents an "infill" parcel. The site is primarily flat and open with native and non-native grasses. Existing development in the project vicinity includes multiple hotels, industrial sites and office parks. A flood control channel maintained by the County of Santa Barbara borders the site to the north.
Discussion:
a. For purposes of determining significance under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public.
According to the General Plan Resources Management Element, there are no designated scenic vistas identified in the project vicinity. The project site is relatively level and is located in an urban area within Santa Maria that is generally surrounded by existing industrial and hotel development. Views from the project area are not expansive, do not portray a highly valued landscape, and would not be considered a scenic vista. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.
U.S. Route 101 (US Highway 101), is identified as an eligible but not officially designated State Scenic Highway, is located approximately one -quarter mile east of the project site.
The project site would be partially visible to viewers traveling along this roadway due to distance, existing intervening development, and landscaping. The hotel development Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
proposed would not introduce any new structures more obstructive to views because multiple hotels have already been built within the viewshed. No other eligible or officially designated state scenic highways are located within proximity or viewshed to the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be less than significant.
b. The project is located in an urban area of Santa Maria and is considered urbanized pursuant to CEQA Section 21071. The proposed GPZ of the parcel would allow for the development of a hotel allowed by the proposed PD/C-2 zoning designation that were not previously allowed at this location due to the existing CM zoning regulations and HCM general plan designation.
The proposed rezone of the parcel to PD/C-2 would generally require similar setback distances and landscaping requirements as the current zoning designation. The new zoning would allow for an increase in maximum allowed building height from 40 to 70 feet; however, the proposed building would be of similar height to the multiple hotels, each of which are also 4 stories, that have been built in the area. Further, there are no notable scenic resources in close proximity to the site of which a structure of such size would block views. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant.
c. The project includes the GPZ and Planned Development Permit to allow for the development of a hotel permitted in the proposed PD/C-2 zoning designation. The proposed hotel will include outdoor lighting fixtures including wall sconces, parking lot poles and accent lighting against the hotel. This project will be conditioned to comply with standard lighting requirements per the Santa Maria Municipal Code, which require that light and glare onto any adjacent properties be minimized, including Section 12-32.20, which requires street and parking area lighting be directed away from residential properties. Building materials and design would be reviewed by the designated review authority for compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the City associated with reflectivity and glare prior to project approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics or visual resources; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c.
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
X
d.
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
X
e.
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use?
X
Setting:
Agriculture has historically played an important role in the economy and development of Santa Maria and the Santa Maria Valley. Soil quality, water supply, year-round growing season, and level topography have made the Santa Maria Valley one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country. A majority of the land under agricultural production within the project vicinity is located in the unincorporated areas surrounding the city. Land under agricultural production within city limits includes a small area near the Santa Maria Regional Landfill and several acres recently annexed to the City.
The project site is located within a developed portion of the city that is not currently used, and has not historically been used, for agricultural purposes.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not support any forest land or timberland.
Discussion:
a. According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Important Farmland Map for Santa Barbara County (DOC 2016), the site is mapped as Urban and Built-up Land. Urban and Built-up Land is defined as land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 -acres, or approximately six structures to a 10 -acre parcel. In addition, the project site does not lie within the area identified in the General Plan Resources Management Element as having prime agricultural soils. The project site does not include any land that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the FMMP; therefore, no conversion of these lands would result from implementation of the project and no impacts would occur.
b. According to the City's General Plan, the project site's land use is designated as HCM and the site is currently zoned CM which are industrial classifications. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is the project site adjacent to agricultural land. The project would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no impacts would occur.
c. The site is zoned CM and located within an urban area and is not within close proximity to forest land or timberland resources; therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts would occur. d. The proposed project would change the General Plan Land Use designation and Zone District from industrial to commercial to allow the development of a hotel. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city and is not located within or adjacent to forest land; therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use and no impacts would occur.
e. As discussed above, the project site does not include active agriculture, farmland designated by the FMMP, land under active Williamson Act contract, or land designated or zoned for agricultural use, forest land, or timber land. The proposed GPZ and development of a hotel on the project site would not directly or indirectly adversely affect agricultural support services in the vicinity; therefore, no impacts to agriculture or forest resources would occur.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to agriculture and forest resources; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
Setting:
The project includes the GPZ and Planned Development Permit to allow for the development of a hotel permitted under the General Commercial zoning. The project site is located in the City of Santa Maria in northern Santa Barbara County. The climate in and around Santa Maria, as well as most of southern California, is dominated by the strength and position of the semi -permanent high- pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It drives the cool daytime sea breeze and maintains a comfortable humidity range and ample sunshine after the frequent morning clouds dissipate. However, the same atmospheric processes that create the desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the population attracted in part by the desirable climate.
Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
• Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.
• Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
• On -road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
■ Off -road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.
Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is generally very good. The closest air monitoring station to the project site is the Santa Maria -906 South Broadway monitoring station, located in downtown Santa Maria. This station measures ozone (O3), particulate matter with diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), and sulfur dioxide.
Regulatory Framework
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for "criteria pollutants" and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic compounds (ROC),1 nitrogen oxides (NOx), PM10, particulate matter of 2.5 microns or Tess (PM25), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as O3, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROC and NOx. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, O3, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). By law, the federal standards may be exceeded not more than once per year, while the California standards may not be exceeded at all.
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which encompasses San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties and is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). As the local air quality management agency, the SBCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCCAB is classified as being in "attainment" or "nonattainment." In areas designated as non -attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants, presented in Table 4 are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition.
Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. Santa Barbara County is currently designated nonattainment for the state standard for PM10, nonattainment for the state and federal standard for 1 -hour and 8 -hour O3, and attainment or unclassifiable for all other federal and state ambient air quality standards (SBCAPCD 2021). These nonattainment statuses are a result of several factors, including mobile and stationary sources in the SCCAB.
Table 4.
Health Effects Associated with Non -Attainment Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Adverse Effects
Ozone
(1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk ' CARB defines VOC and ROC similarly as, "any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate," with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROC and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROC is used in this IS-MND.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Pollutant
Adverse Effects
to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.
Suspended
particulate
matter (PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).'
Air Quality Management
Because Santa Barbara County is designated nonattainment for the state O3 and PM10 standards, the SBCAPCD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS. The 2022 Ozone Plan is the current SBCAPCD Board -adopted air quality management plan for the County. The 2022 Ozone Plan incorporates and builds upon the prior Clean Air Plans and predominantly focuses on achieving attainment of the state O3 standards, in addition to the federal O3 standard. The 2022 Ozone Plan focuses on reducing O3 precursor emissions through implementation of transportation control measures that serve to reduce mobile source emissions, which are the primary source of ROC and nitrogen oxides emissions in the county (SBCAPCD 2022). The major sources of O3 precursor emissions in Santa Barbara County, which includes the City of Santa Maria, are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paints, consumer products and certain industrial processes). Sources of PM10 include mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and vehicle exhaust (County of Santa Barbara 2021a).
Sensitive Receivers
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. CARB has identified the following typical groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14 years of age; elderly over 65 years of age; athletes; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Land uses typically associated with sensitive receivers include schools, parks, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and clinics (CARB 2005). The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single-family residences located to the south of the project approximately 700 feet south of the site.
Significance Thresholds
The City of Santa Maria and SBCAPCD have not adopted quantitative significance criteria for temporary construction emissions associated with conventional land development projects. However, SBCAPCD recommends quantification of construction -related emissions from construction activities and uses 25 tons per year for ROC and NOx as a guideline for determining the significance of construction impacts. For other construction projects involving standard grading and building activities, SBCAPCD (2022) notes that consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan requires the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize dust generation. This analysis uses 25 tons per year as a significance threshold for construction -related emissions.
Long-term air quality impacts occur during project operation and include emissions from equipment or processes used in the project. These emissions must be summed to determine the significance of the project's long-term impact on air quality. Based on the criteria suggested by the SBCAPCD Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
(2022) a project would not have a significant air quality effect on the environment if operation of the project would:
■ Emit (from all project sources, mobile and stationary), less than the daily trigger (Currently 240 pounds per day for NOx and ROC, 80 pounds per day for PM10, and 240 pounds per day for attainment pollutants (except PM2,5 and carbon monoxide) for offsets set in the APCD New Source Review Rule, for any pollutant; and
• Emit less than 25 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or reactive organic compounds (ROC) from motor vehicle trips only; and
■ Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard (except O3); and
• Not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the APCD Board; and
■ Be consistent with the adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans.
Methodology
An Air Quality Analysis completed on August 16, 2023, was prepared for the proposed project by Padre Associates). The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the criteria pollutants that would be emitted by the proposed project and compare the estimate to the SBCAPCD air quality regulations.
The City received a revised Air Quality Analysis completed on December 8, 2023. The complete analysis is attached in the initial study within the appendix (Appendix A).
Impact Discussion:
a. Vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated air pollutant emissions are directly related to population and housing growth. A project may be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan if it would result in population, housing, or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates included in the applicable air quality plan. Such growth would generate emissions not accounted for in the applicable air quality plan emissions budget. Therefore, projects need to be evaluated to determine whether they would generate population, housing, or employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates included in the applicable air quality plan. The most recent and applicable adopted air quality plan is the 2022 Ozone Plan. The 2022 Ozone Plan, prepared by the SBCAPCD in December 2022, is the tenth triennial update to the initial state Air Quality Attainment Plan that was adopted by the SBCAPCD Board of Directors in 1991. The 2022 Ozone Plan describes the air quality setting for the Santa Barbara County region, including the regional climate and meteorology, current and projected air quality, and the regulatory framework for the management of air quality. To be determined to be consistent with the current air quality attainment plan (2022 Ozone Plan), the project's direct and indirect emissions must be accounted for in the growth assumptions in the 2022 Ozone Plan and the project must be consistent with the policies adopted in the 2022 Ozone Plan.
The Ozone Plan relies primarily on the land use and population projections provided by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) and CARB on -road emissions forecast as a basis for vehicle emission forecasting (SBCAPCD 2022). Populations that remain within the 2022 Ozone Plan and SBCAG forecasts are accounted for with regard to SBCAPCD emissions inventories. When population growth exceeds these forecasts, emission inventories could be surpassed, affecting attainment status. The project includes the GPZ to allow for the development of a hotel permitted under the General Commercial zoning. The proposed project would be within an infill site, and employees of the hotel are sourced from the local labor pool.
Therefore, the project would not result in near -term increases in population that would exceed year 2025 population projections or exceed year 2035 projections and the project would be overall consistent with the growth assumptions in
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
the 2022 Ozone Plan (the applicable air quality plan). Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Further, the development of the site would be required to comply with all SBCAPCD rules and regulations for construction and operation. The project would be consistent with the SCAPCD 2022 Ozone Plan and thus, would not obstruct its implementation. This impact would also be less than significant.
b. The project would result in temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions, however none of the emissions would exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Construction activities such as the use of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust being drawn into the air by turbulent air currents. Exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade regional air quality. Long-term emissions associated with operational impacts would include emissions from vehicle trips (mobile sources); natural gas use (energy sources); landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with on -site development (area sources); and forklifts (off -road sources). Air pollutant emissions associated with project construction and operation are discussed in the following subsections.
Construction Emissions.
Temporary air quality impacts generally occur during project construction. SBCAPCD has not established construction emissions thresholds. Ozone precursors NOx and ROG, as well as CO, would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment. Fugitive dust (PM10) would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, and roadway and project construction. Project construction emissions were estimated using CaIEEMod. Tables 5 and 6 show the estimates of maximum daily construction emissions associated with the development. For full modeling results refer to Appendix A.
Table 5. Estimated Total Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Emissions
ROG
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
NOx
(tons/yr)
SOx
(tons/yr)
PM10
(tons/yr)
PM2 5
(tons/yr)
Construction
Emissions
5.03 2.19
0.83 0.003
0.03 0.03
0.95 0.007
0.04 0.04
SBCAPCD
Thresholds
25 25
25 25
25 25
Threshold
Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Table 6. Estimated Construction Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG (Ibs/day)
NOx (Ibs/day)
Construction Emissions
SBCAPCD Thresholds*
Threshold Exceeded?
0.04 --
No
1.99 --
No
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, annual emissions of all criteria pollutants would be below SBCAPCD's 25 tons per year threshold for the project construction. However, because the Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB is a nonattainment area for the state PM10 standard, construction emissions control measures are required for all projects involving earthmoving activities regardless of size or duration. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been identified to reduce construction emissions in accordance with local regulatory policies. With the inclusion of this measure, impacts from construction emissions would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions.
Operational emissions would include emissions associated with mobile sources (vehicle trips); energy sources (natural gas use); area sources (landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with on -site operational activities); and off -road sources (forklifts).
The emissions from project operations were estimated using CaIEEMod. Tables 7 and 8 summarize the operational emissions that would result from the project and compares the emissions with the SBCAPCD significance criteria for evaluating air emissions impacts.
Table 7. Estimated Total Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG
(Ibs/day)
CO
(Ibs/day)
NOx
(Ibs/day)
SOx
(Ibs/day)
PM10
(Ibs/day)
PM2.5
(Ibs/day)
Operational
Emissions
2.54 70.11
8.07 0.27
0.59 0.57
2.55 70.48
9,2-0
SBCAPCD Thresholds
240
--
240
--
80 --
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Table 8. Estimated Project Operational Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG (Ibs/day)
NOx (Ibs/day)
Operational Emissions
1 .' 5
7.02 SBCAPCD Thresholds
25 25
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
The project's operational emissions would not exceed SBCAPCD criteria for defining a significant air quality impact.
Construction emissions would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds for criteria pollutants and no mitigation is required. Operational emissions would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds for a criteria pollutant and would comply with SBCAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds. The project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants, such as the elderly, children, people with asthma or other respiratory illnesses, and others who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, due to the population that occupies the uses and the activities Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
involved. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residences.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single-family residences located to the south of the project approximately 700 feet south of the site. While the GPZ would not trigger any direct air pollutant emissions, development of the project could indirectly lead to temporary air pollutant emissions during the construction phase in close proximity to sensitive receptors.
Emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROC) during project construction would result primarily from the on -site use of heavy construction equipment. Heavy equipment performing construction activities would generate fugitive dust, resulting in substantial temporary impacts.
Fugitive dust emissions would result from land clearing, excavation, and equipment traffic over temporary dirt roads. Impacts from fugitive dust emissions could be significant because they could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. The SBCAPCD requires dust control measures for all discretionary construction activities; therefore, the SBCAPCD's standard fugitive dust control measures have been incorporated as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to reduce fugitive dust generated during construction and to require diesel -idling control measures during construction of the project to reduce emissions of NOx and ROC in proximity to sensitive receptors. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with mitigation. d. During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary, generally disperse with distance, and would cease upon completion of the project.
Project construction would not generate other emissions leading to odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Construction -related impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Control Measures. The project applicant shall install the following air pollutant emissions control measures throughout the construction period:
Dust Control Measures
During construction, the applicant shall implement all of the applicable measures from the following list as standard dust control measures to avoid impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions:
a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. However, reclaimed water should not be used in or around crops for human consumption.
b. Minimize amount of disturbed area and reduce on site vehicle speeds to 15 mph or less.
c. If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
d. Gravel pads shall be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud onto public roads.
e. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed, treat the disturbed area by watering, or revegetating, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. f. Schedule clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation activities during periods of low wind speed to the extent feasible. During periods of high winds (>25 mph) clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent fugitive dust created by onsite operations from becoming a nuisance or hazard.
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of the structure.
g.
Equipment Emissions Control Measures
During project grading and construction, the applicant shall adhere to the following measures to reduce NOx and PM25 emissions from construction equipment:
a. All portable diesel -powered construction equipment shall be registered with the state's portable equipment registration program OR shall obtain an APCD permit. b. Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In -use Off -road Diesel Vehicles (Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, § 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in -use (existing) off -road diesel -fueled vehicles. For more information, please refer to the CARB website at www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm . c. All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, § 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible. d. Diesel construction equipment meeting the CARB Tier 3 or higher emission standards for off -road heavy-duty diesel engines shall be used to the maximum extent feasible.
e. Diesel powered equipment should be replaced by electric equipment whenever feasible.
f. If feasible, diesel construction equipment shall be equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems, diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters as certified and/or verified by EPA or California.
g. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline -powered equipment, if feasible. h. All construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer's specifications.
i. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. j. The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Fugitive Dust Control
The project applicant shall comply with SBCAPCD's Rule 345: Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities including all applicable standards and measures therein.
Diesel -fired Engine Permits
All portable diesel -fired construction engines rated at 50 brake horsepower (bhp) or greater must have either statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) certificates or SBCAPCD permits prior to grading/building permit issuance. Construction engines with PERP certificates are exempt from SBCAPCD permit, provided they will be onsite for less than 12 months.
Permit to Operate
If contaminated soils are found at the project site, SBCAPCD must be contacted to determine if ATC and/or Permit to Operate permits shall be required. (SBCAPCD permits are required for all soil vapor extraction activities. SBCAPCD permits are also required for the excavation, or "dig -and -haul," of more than 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils.) Equipment Idling Requirements
At all times, idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks should be minimized; auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible. State law requires that:
• Drivers of diesel -fueled commercial vehicles shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location.
• Drivers of diesel -fueled commercial vehicles shall not idle a diesel -fueled auxiliary power system (APS) for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle. Trucks with 2007 or newer model year engines must meet additional requirements (verified clean APS Zabel required). ■ See www.arb.ca.gov/noidle for more information.
Asphalt Paving Requirements
Asphalt paving activities shall comply with APCD Rule 329, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials.
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, potential impacts from air pollutant emissions and odors would be reduced and impacts would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Setting:
The project site is an undeveloped infill property located in an urbanized area of Santa Maria that is surrounded by hotel and industrial development as well as a flood control channel maintained by the County of Santa Barbara. The project site is sparsely vegetated and has been regularly cleared of weeds under Title 5 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code. Four trees are present within the project site and would be removed and replaced with thirty-six trees as part of the proposed project.
The General Plan Resources Management Element identifies sensitive habitats within the City boundaries including Central Coast Riparian Scrub and the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh.
Based on Figure RME-3 of the Resources Management Element, the project site is not located within close proximity of either of these designated habitat areas.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Wildlife corridors are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical or genetic exchange between isolated animal populations. These connections may serve a local purpose, such as foraging and nesting or denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. There is a potential that the Santa Maria, Cuyama, and Sisquoc Rivers are used by wildlife to access habitats in the Sierra Madre and San Rafael Mountains. The project site is not located within close proximity to any of these major waterways; therefore, there is limited potential for wildlife migration through the project vicinity.
Discussion:
a. The project site is undeveloped and vegetation on the site is limited to seasonally cut grasses.
Review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) indicate that special status plant species have the potential to occur in the project area. However, based on the minimal amount of existing vegetation on the graded and regularly mowed site, the potential for special status plant species to occur on site is very low and all ground disturbing activities proposed would occur within previously disturbed areas.
Based on the query of the IPaC and CNDDB, a total of 20 special -status animal species have been documented in the Santa Maria Quadrangle. The mostly developed site area exhibits little to no habitat for sensitive species; however, within the project vicinity, there are known occurrences of California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense; CTS), a federally endangered and state threatened species, and California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF), a federally threatened species and California Species of Special Concern. The project site is not located within the identified range of CTS. In addition, according to the CNDDB, CTS are commonly found in grasslands and low foothill oak and woodland habitats (CDFW 2018a).
CTS breed in long-lasting rain pools or permanent ponds lacking predators. During the nonbreeding season, adults occur in upland habitats frequently occupying burrows, and migrate nocturnally to aquatic sites to breed during relatively warm winter or spring rains (USFWS 2019). The project site does not contain grasslands or oak woodlands. Therefore, due to the isolation of the site from suitable habitat, the surrounding developed area, and as the site is not identified as being within the range of CTS, this species would not occur on the project site.
CRLF occupy a distinct habitat comprised of specific aquatic and upland components.
Breeding sites can occur within 2 miles of a site that stays moist and cool through the summer (USFWS 2019). Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the development of the surrounding lands, and the regular clearing of vegetation on this project site, CRLF is not expected to occur within the project area. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for CTS, CRLF or any other candidate, sensitive or special -status species and would not result in an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
In addition to the CNDDB query, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2018) was reviewed to provide additional information on rare plants that are known to occur in the area. No special -status plant species were documented on the project site. Nevertheless, existing trees on and around the parcels within the area could contain bird nests and birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code of California (CFGC). Protected birds include all common songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and pigeons, swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (feathers, plumes etc.), nests, and eggs. The project would involve removal of existing trees on the site. In addition, disturbance from project demolition and construction activities may affect protected nesting birds in existing trees
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
near the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in impacts to candidate, sensitive or special status plants on site or habitat modifications would be less than significant with mitigation.
b, c. The project site is graded and regularly cleared of vegetation. According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (Wetlands Mapper), the project site does not contain riparian habitat, state or federally protected wetlands, or any other sensitive natural community (USFWS 2018b). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or state or federally protected wetlands. d. The project area does not support any surface water resources, migratory corridors, or nursery sites. Four pine trees are present within the project site and would be removed and replaced with thirty-six trees (ginko, pear, crape myrtle, jacaranda, chinese pistache, purple leaf plum, india hawthorne, mimosa tree, chinese flame, brisbane box and strawberry tree) as part of the proposed project. For the purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that, due to the disturbance onsite and in surrounding areas, lack of suitable wildlife habitat and the limited size of the project area the project site is not located within or adjacent to a wildlife corridor or nursery site. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly restrict the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e. The graded and regularly cleared project site does not contain suitable habitat for protected biological resources. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact. f. There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. The project would comply with the City's General Plan and local ordinances pertaining to the protection of biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
The following mitigation measure would be required to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds as a result of the project.
BIO-1 Pre -construction Nesting Bird Surveys. To avoid and minimize impacts to nesting bird species, including special status species (e.g., burrowing owl) and species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, all initial vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities for the project shall be limited to the time period between September 1 and February 1.
If initial vegetation clearing and ground disturbance cannot be conducted during this time period, the applicant shall conduct a pre -construction survey for active bird nests within the limits of the project site and a 300 -foot buffer, with an allowed reduction in this buffer, if approved by The City, due to right -of -entry and/or line -of -sight issues. Surveys shall be conducted by a City -approved qualified biologist.
Surveys shall be conducted no less than two weeks prior to any construction activities. If no active nests are located, ground- disturbing construction activities can proceed and no further mitigation will be required. If active nests are located, then all construction work Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
must be conducted outside a no disturbance buffer zone (up to 300 feet for raptors, and up to 100 feet for all other species). No direct disturbance to nests shall occur until the young are no longer reliant on the nest site as determined by the City -approved qualified biologist.
The approved biologist shall conduct monitoring of the nest until all young have fledged, at which time construction activities can occur within the previously established no disturbance zone.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The results of the surveys shall be reported to the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permits. No disturbance buffers shall be demarcated in the field (e.g., fencing, flagging) prior to initiation of construction activities in the vicinity of an active nest.
Monitoring. The City Community Development Department staff will verify that a pre - construction
nesting bird survey has been conducted, if required based on construction timing, and shall verify
that no disturbance avoidance buffers have been established prior to issuance of a grading permit. The approved biologist shall be responsible for monitoring active nests, if any occur.
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bi0-1, potential impacts to biological resources would be avoided and impacts would be less than significant.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
X
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Setting:
The Santa Maria Valley was historically occupied by Chumash people until European contact in the mid -eighteenth century. Areas within close proximity to perennial water sources tend to have higher archeological sensitivity; the project site is not located within close proximity to any blue -line streams or bodies of water. According to the General Plan Resources Management Element, the project site is located in an area designated to have negligible sensitivity for archeological resources.
The establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo to the north and Mission La Purisima Concepcion near the city of Lompoc was the beginning of development and settlement in the Santa Maria area.
Industrialization and the connection of the Pacific Coast Railroad to Santa Maria further stimulated Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
commercial and residential growth in the area. Historical resources in Santa Maria consist of several landmarks and structures. The City has officially designated 10 historic structures and landmarks, with additional sites designated by the Landmark Committee, none of which are located on -site.
Discussion:
a. The project site does not contain, nor is it located near, any historic resources identified in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The project site is not identified on the City's Landmark Map or on the City's Objects of Historic Merit Map; therefore, potential impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
b. According to the Resources Management Element, the Santa Maria Valley is not a major archaeological or paleontological resource area, as only a few sites have been recorded or discovered in the area. The Resources Management Element delineates high, moderate, low, and negligible archaeological sensitivity areas within the city; the project site is designated as Archaeological Sensitivity Area 3 — Negligible Sensitivity. Nevertheless, ground disturbance associated with construction activities have the potential to result in inadvertent disturbance of previously unknown, buried archeological deposits. Impacts are conservatively considered to be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, identified below, would ensure potential impacts are avoided and/or minimized; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c. Based on the location and low sensitivity of the project area, development of the project site would not be expected to disturb buried human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains associated with development of the project site, California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 stipulates that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC Section 5097.98. With adherence to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which stipulates the process to be followed when human remains are encountered, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CR-2, impacts related to the disturbance of archaeological resources and human remains would be reduced to less than significant; therefore, potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
CR-1
Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that any cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities associated with development of the project site, all construction activities within a 100 -foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a qualified archaeologist, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts; fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information Center, located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. These actions would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
CR-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during subsurface earthwork activities associated with development of the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community Development Department shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. These protocols shall be detailed on project grading and construction plans for all development on -site. These actions would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR- 2, potential impacts to archaeological resources and undiscovered buried human remains would be avoided and impacts would be less than significant.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
X
b.
Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Setting:
In January 2021, Santa Maria customers began to receive their electricity from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE; previously known as Monterey Bay Community Power [MBCP]), which is a community choice energy agency that has committed to providing its customers with 100% carbon - free sourced energy by 2030. Community choice energy agencies allow local governments to procure power on behalf of their residents, businesses, and municipal accounts from an alternative supplier while still receiving transmission and distribution service from their existing utility provider (in this case, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company [PG&E]). Per Public Utilities Code Section 366.2, customers have the right to opt out of the community choice energy program and continue to receive service from the incumbent utility (PG&E) if they so choose (City of Santa Maria 2020a). Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the primary provider of natural gas for development within the city. SoCalGas has committed to replacing 20% of its traditional natural gas supply with renewable natural gas by 2030 (Sempra Energy 2022). Renewable natural gas is generated from waste and agricultural byproducts and is carbon-neutral/carbon-negative, which means it can take more GHG emissions out of the atmosphere than it emits as an energy source.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent version of which are referred to as the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2023). These standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non-residential lighting requirements.
The General Plan Resources Management Element includes goals for achieving increased energy conservation use within the city through increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, and buildings, as well as encouragement for development and the use of alternative forms of energy.
Current measures applied in the city include energy -conserving building standards, recycling, and transportation system improvements. The Resources Management Element also identifies energy conservation policies, including encouraging the use of innovative site and building orientation and landscaping to maximize energy efficiency, fuel efficiency standards, and encouraging development of alternative energy sources.
Discussion:
a. The project includes the GPZ and Planned Development Permit to allow for the development of a hotel permitted under the General Commercial zoning and would not result in any immediate energy use. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar construction activities in the county. Federal and state regulations in place require fuel -efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling.
The Project would be infill development and would be required to be designed and constructed in compliance with the CBC, which requires that the project achieves high energy efficiency, including, but not limited to, use of low -flow, energy -efficient appliances, light emitting diode (LED) lighting, insulation and building material standards, etc. Development on the site would rely on local electricity service provider 3CE, which would provide a 100% carbon -free energy mix by 2030, unless they choose to opt -out and be served by PG&E, which provides 50% renewable energy and 89% greenhouse gas (GHG)-free energy (Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2023). Development on the site would rely on SoCalGas as a service provider for natural gas, which is committed to replacing 20% of its traditional natural gas supply with renewable natural gas by 2030. Therefore, the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and impacts would be less than significant. b. Development on the project site to establish the hotel will be required to be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards. Based on the location of the project site, development in this location is considered infill and the proposed GPZ would not allow for the development of a project that could potentially result in a conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to energy; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii . Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
i i i . Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv. Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the most recent Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
Setting:
The proposed project is located within the Santa Maria Valley, an east —west trending alluvial valley bounded to the north by the San Rafael Range and to the south by the Casmalia Range and the Solomon Hills. The Santa Maria River traverses the valley from east to west, emptying into the Pacific Ocean just west of the town of Guadalupe. The Santa Maria River is formed by the convergence of the Cuyama and the Sisquoc Rivers at Fugler Point near Garey.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
Environmental Checklist
The Santa Maria basin is a significant hydrocarbon -producing (Le., oil and gas) coastal (and off -shore) basin in California. The basin lies at the juncture between the north —west -trending southern Coast Range province and the east —west -trending Transverse Range province. The basin contains a relatively thick Miocene through Holocene age sequence of sedimentary rocks, some of which are prolific petroleum producing formations and others that are highly productive groundwater aquifers.
The Santa Maria Valley is located within a structural fold and thrust fault area; the axes of most of the structural elements in the region run northwest —southeast, parallel to the valley. The Santa Maria basin and adjacent southern Coast Ranges have been subjected to considerable uplift during the last 2 to 5 million years and are considered to be seismically active. Relatively little direct evidence of active faulting (such as offset of bedding or structures observed at a surface fault) has been observed in the region; however, broad bands of seismicity unrelated to surface faults and other evidence indicate the region is seismically active.
According to the City of Santa Maria General Plan Safety Element, several active, potentially active, and inactive faults exist within the basin and region, and generally trend north—west. The major faults include the Santa Maria, Santa Maria River, and Casmalia Faults. None of these faults qualify for Earthquake Fault Zone status as identified by the State Geologist under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Act.
Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023), the project site is underlain by the following soil type:
• Sandy alluvial land, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This soil consists of sandy and gravelly deposits.
Stratification is variable in this type of soil. This land type is used for limited grazing and wildlife habitat.
Discussion:
a. i. Several active and potentially active faults exist within the region, including the Santa Maria and Casmalia Faults, located approximately 0.5 miles and 7.0 miles away from the project site, respectively. However, based on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps and information available from the DOC, the city is not located within an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone. Development within the project site is subject to standard construction standards and the CBC to ensure buildings are constructed to withstand the magnitude of earthquakes that could potentially occur in that zone; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. ii. Seismic ground shaking is influenced by the proximity of the site to an earthquake fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the underlying soil composition. The DOC Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps indicate that the entire Santa Maria Valley is located in a lower hazard area. Potential effects of seismic ground shaking on the hotel would be minimized through the implementation of the seismic requirements specified by the CBC and applicable City standards for earthquake -resistant construction; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
iii. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the project site does not contain shallow perched groundwater. Development within the project site would be required to comply with CBC requirements and the City's building regulations to reduce risk associated with seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction; therefore, potential impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. iv. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area where landslide movements are anticipated to occur. The project site is generally flat and is not located near slopes that would be susceptible to landslides; therefore, the potential for impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
b. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey, the primary soil type underlying the project site is sandy alluvial land, 0 to 5 percent slopes. Construction phase activity may result in wind and water driven soil erosion and loss of topsoil if soil is stockpiled or exposed. Development of the project site would be subject to the City's Landscape and Irrigation Standards to provide soil erosion control on -site. The development would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would be administered through project construction. The SWPPP would be required to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that potential water quality impacts during construction from soil erosion would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. c. The following analysis is based on the Safety Element in the City's General Plan (1995):
Licuefaction or collapse: The soil conditions present at the project site are not susceptible to liquefaction if substantial ground shaking events were to occur. Standard construction techniques would be employed to ensure no significant risk to human life would occur; therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.
Landslide: Landslides typically occur in areas with steep slopes or containing escarpments.
Based on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps and related information available from the DOC, Santa Maria is not located within a designated landslide hazard zone. According to the Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area where landslide movements are anticipated to occur; therefore, the potential for impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
Lateral Spreading: The project site is not located within an area known to contain expansive soils. Additionally, all building development would be required to comply with the most recent CBC requirements, which would ensure protection of structures and occupants from seismic hazards, such as expansive soils; therefore, impacts related to seismic soils would be less than significant.
Subsidence: Santa Maria area has not had significant subsidence issues despite historical oil drilling in the area. Although subsidence could occur, it is perceived to be an insignificant risk due to the absence of reported incidences (City of Santa Maria 1995); therefore, impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant.
d. According to the Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area known to contain expansive soils. Additionally, all development would be required to comply with the most recent CBC requirements, which would ensure protection of structures and occupants from geologic hazards, such as expansive soils; therefore, impacts related to seismic soils would be less than significant.
e. The proposed project would include installation of a new service connection to existing City's wastewater treatment facilities and would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impacts would result from the use of an onsite septic system.
f. While there are no unique geologic features on the project site, the site is underlain by Older Alluvium, which is considered to have high sensitivity for paleontological resources (Diblee 1994; U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT] 2004). Fossils that have been historically encountered in formations of this age include tidepool and rock -cliff mollusks and barnacles in marine deposits (Woodring et al. 1950). Based on the sensitivity of the underlying geologic formation, development on -site may have the potential to disturb previously unknown paleontological resources. Mitigation measure GEO-1 has been included to address inadvertent discovery protocol in order to reduce potential impacts to paleontological Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
resources to less than significant; therefore, potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
GEO-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. Should any vertebrate fossils or potentially significant finds (e.g., numerous well-preserved invertebrate or plant fossils) be encountered during work on -site, all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease until a qualified paleontologist evaluates the find for its scientific value. If deemed significant, the paleontological resource(s) shall be salvaged and deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution where they will be properly curated and preserved. These actions would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 potential impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided and impacts would be less than significant.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Setting:
Regulatory Framework:
In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap - and -Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
On December 22, 2022, the CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan, which lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the Ian will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and secuester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.
As with the 2017 Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan does not provide pro'ect-level thresholds for land use development. The SBCAPCD nor the City of Santa Maria have adopted GHG thresholds of significance for construction or operational GHG emissions, therefore the significance of a Project's GHG impacts per CEQA guidelines and per the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) recommendations can be evaluated based on the Project's consistency with an applicable GHG reduction plan (AEP, 2016'. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally - appropriate quanti-ative tiros ds consistent witi a statewide per capi.a goa o six metric tons (MT) o CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 20' 7).
The efficiency threshold of 3.3 MT of CO2e per year initially used for the Project -Specific Efficiency Threshold analysis below was based on the now -superseded CARB 2017 Scoping Plan GHG reduction goals. Since CARB has published their 2022 Scoping Plan, the Project -Specific Efficiency Threshold analysis (including Table 9) has been removed from the IS/MND and replaced by the December 8, 2023 Padre Associates, Inc. greenhouse gas emissions analysis.
California Building Standards Code (California Code of Reculations Title 24;: The California Building Standards Code (CBC) consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration of the CBC is the 2022 Title 24 standards. Part 6 of the CBC is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California's energy demand. Part 12 of the CBC is the CALGreen, which includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground -up new construction of residential and non- residential structures.
The 2022 CBC Title 24 standards and CALGreen requirements are consistent with AB -32 SB-32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan, therefore a Proposed Project that meets the requirements of the 2022 CBC Title 24 Part 6 Building Efficiency Energy Standards and CALGreen would be consistent with an applicable GHG reduction plan.
Other relevant state laws and regulations include:
• SB 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state's ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. • SB 100: Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state's Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.
SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 % of total retail sales by 2020, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2045.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24): Tie Cal'
sandards and codes re ated o bui ding constructon 'nc uding p umbing, e ec -ica , 'nte-io acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration of the CBG is the 2022 —.t e 2z- standards. Par 6 of the CBC is -he Bui ding Ene-gy E—iciency Standards, which es-ab'shes energy efficiency sandards -o residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California's energy demand. Part 12 of the CBC is the CALGreen, which includes mandatory minimum environmental performance stands ds -o a ground up new construe 'on o residentia and non res'dential s Tuctures.
Project Specific Efficiency Threshold:
A oca y appropr'ate 2030 pro'ect spcci-ic tiresho d is dor'ved -rom CARB's recommends ions in the 20' 7 C imate Change Scoping P a i Update. ie oca y -appropriate, pro'ect- eve ti-esio d of 3.2 MT o CO2e per serv'ce popu a -ion has been estab ished, consisten- w' h SB 32 Larges, as shown 'n —ab c 9aid Tab e'0.
Table 9. SB 32 Scoping Plan Emissions Sector Target&
GHG Emissions
Sector'
2030
State
Emission
s Target
(MMT)4
Locally
Appropriate
2 Project
Specifi
G
Major Sources3
Residentia and
38 Yes
Yes
Natu-a end uses, inc uding
Commercia
gas
space and wa -er hea -ing o
bu' d' igs
E ec-ric Power
53 Yes
Yes
E ectrici uses, inc uding
y
lighting, appliances, machinery
and seating
High GWP
1-1-
Yes
Yes
SF6 rom stations, HFCs
power
rom re-r'gerants and air
condition'ng4
Recyc ing and Was -e
3 Yes
Yes
Waste by res'den is
generated ,
commercia and o her ac' 'tics
,
ransporta -ion
' 03
Yes
Yes
Passcngc-, heavy du
y, and
o ier veiic e emissions
ndustrial
63 No
No
Oil, and hydrogen
gas,
refine-ies,
producton, genera
ue use, and mining opera-'ons
co not occur substan la w'thin
y
the city and are not
proposed
s
or tie
pro'ec
Agricu ture
24 Ne
No
Enteric 'ermen ation, crop
residue bu-n'ng, and manure
management do no occur
substanta wi lin the city and
y
arc not -or tie
proposec pro'ect
Cap anc Trade
-69
No
No
Reductions from -aci ities
Reductions
emiting more than 0,000 M-
CO2c
pc year6
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
GHG Emissions
Sector'
2030
State
Emission
s Target
(MMT)1
Locally
Appropriate
2 Project
Specifi
Major Sources3
Scoping Plan Target
(All Sectors)
260
Ne
Ne
A
I emissions sectors
_oca y
Sec or
napp
ndus
icab
ria )
c
43 ado
No
Oi , gas, and hydrogen
produc'on, -e-ineries, genera
fue use, and mining operat'ons5
Loca y napp icab
Sec or (Agricu ure)
-24
No
No
En-eric fe-men ation, crop
residue burning, and manure
management
Loca y napp icab
Sector
(Cap and Trade)
c
60 No
Reductions rom -aci i-'es
emitting more than ' 0,000 M-
CO2c pc year6
2030 Locally
Applicable Emissions
Sectors
21-3
Yes
Yes
Emissions applicable to the
local planning area
MMT = million metric tons
-/III State targets in MMT CO2c. Sec the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, page 31 for sector details (CARB 2017).
2 -Locally -appropriate is defined as having significant emissions in Scoping Plan Categorization categories within the planning area.
3 -See CARB GHG Emissions Inventory Scoping Plan Categorization for details, available at:
httpsli www.arb.ca.goy/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
4-SF4, is used primarily as an insulator in electrical substations while HFCs can be found in many residential and commercial refrigeration and air conditioning units. HFCs are in the process of being phased out through 2036 in most developed countries. 6 -The majority of this sector is not applicable to the local planning area, and any potential applicable subsectors cannot be disaggregated due to CARB accounting methods. Therefore, the entire sector has been removed to ensure a more conservative target. 6 -Cap and Trade is excluded as reductions will occur independent of local project land use decisions and, therefore, are not locally appropriate.
Table 10.
SB 32 Locally -Appropriate Project -Specific Threshold
California 2017
Climate Change
Scoping Plan
Ca
i=ornia 2030 Popu
ation (persons)4
,860,5
9 Ca i=ornia 2030 Emp
{persons)2
oyment Pro'ection
23,
59,500
Service Popu
ation (persons)
65,320,0'9
Locally -
Appropriate 2030
Project Threshold
2030 Locally -Appropriate Emissions Sectors
{MT o COM
2' 3,000,000
2030 Service Popu
ation (persons)
65,320,0'9
2030 Service Person Target (M o CO2e per
Service Person)
3.32 4-DOF 2021
2 -Average of employment range projections under implementation scenario. See CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, page 55 (CARB 2017).
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Total of 3.26 has been rounded up per Scoping Plan general methodology. Lead agencies may determine this threshold as they deem appropriate.
Service Population:
According to the applicant, the hotel proposes to utilize 12 employees. The service population of the anticipated development is conservatively estimated to be 151 when guests and employees are inc uded as estimated by the applican-.
Methodology:
Padre Associates, Inc. completed a greenhouse gas emissions analysis on August 16, 2023, for the project which was revised on December 8, 2023 and is attached to this document as Appendix A. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted by the proposed project and compare the estimate to applicable air c uality and greenhouse gas regulations and plans tie SBCAPCD greenhouse gas rcgu ations. The complete analysis is attached in the initial study within the appendix.
Discussion:
a -b.
Construction and operational GHG emissions associated with the project were quantified using CaIEEMod. Complete CaIEEMod results and assumptions are provided in Appendix A.
Calculations of N2O, CH4 and CO2 emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4 and N2O because these make up 98.9 % of all GHG emissions by volume and are the GHG emissions that the project would emit in the largest quantities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007).
Project construction would generate GHG emissions from the operation of heavy equipment, motor vehicles, and worker trips to and from the site. As shown in Table 9-14, project construction would emit approximately 622 MT CO2e Der year, amortized over a 30 -year period the construction phase is estimated to generate 21 MTCO2E per year 622 MT o CO2c per year.
Table 149.
Estimated Project Construction GHG Emissions
Phase
N2O
(Tons/Year)
CH4
(Tons/Year)
CO2
(Tons/Year)
MTCO2E2
(Per/Year)
Construction Emissions
0.05 0.10
669.2
622
Table X10.
Estimated Project Construction and Operational GHG Emissions Emission Source
MTCO2E / year
MTCOZE / year
MTCO2E / year
Without Guest
With Guest Trips
Trips
Amortized Construction
Emissions
24 21
21 Operational Emissions
22-9
4,574
368
Area
9�8
0_0
0_0
Energy
114
114
114
2 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Ecuivalent
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Mobile
6-54
4,422
217
Solid Waste
/'
37 37
.0
Water
0.0 0.01
0.01 Total Emissions
24'
4,595
347
Service Population
5'
Emissions Service
per
Population (MT CO2E/SP/year)
.6
Project Specific Efficiency
3.3 Threshold (MTCO2E/SP/year)
Exceed Project -Specific
No
Efficiency Threshold?
In addition to construction emissions, project operation would generate GHG emissions from new vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas usage, area sources, and off -road equipment usage. The amortized emissions from construction were added to the operational emissions to determine the total combined annual emissions. Table 1012 summarizes combined annual GHG emissions generated by project construction and operation based on the CaIEEMod output files in Appendix A.
Since the SBCAPCD nor the City of Santa Maria have adopted GHG thresholds of significance for construction or operational GHG emissions the Proposed Pro'ect's GHG emissions are provided for informational Durposes only. As shown in Table 10 ' 2, the combined annual GHG emissions from the project would be approximately ' .6 4,595 MT of CO2e per year with cuest trips and 347 MT of CO2e per year without guest trips. which wou c not exceed the oca y appropr.atc, p -o cc cpcci= c th-cspo d o 3.3 M— o CO2c per service person pe- yea The Proposed Project will be constructed in compliance with 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen, which are consistent with the qoals outlined in AB 32, SB 32 and the 2022 Scopinc Plan. Tie p-oposed protect ope-ations wou d inc ude nume-ous energy and water e—iciency measures, as required by CALGreen.
Notable mandatory 2022 CBC standards that will be im
include the following:
• Photovoltaic system with energy storace system;
• Routine enercy system efficiency inspections;
Dlemented by the Pro
Dosed Project
• Electric Vehicle (EV) Charcing Stations. Five EV stations are proposed; • Low VOC emitting building material and architectural coatincs throuchout; • Planed reduction of indoor water use to 20 percent below baseline use per CALGreen;
• Use of water efficient landscape designs and
• Permanently anchored bicycle Darkinc area.
plants; and
Additionally, the SBCAG has incorporated a sustainable community strategy into its 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connected 2050 Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
RTP/SCS), which is designed to help the region achieve its SB 375 GHG emissions reduction target. The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS includes strategies intended to increase jobs within the City of Santa Maria. The project would increase employment within the city which would improve the City's jobs -housing ratio and therefore reduce vehicle emissions.
The project would also be required to comply with existing State regulations, which include increased energy conservation measures and other actions adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions recuction goa s identi-ied 'n SB 32. Although there is no locally adopted GHG Reduction Plan to reduce emissions from new development, the project would not conflict with any State regulations or plans (AB -32, SB-32 and the 2022 ScoDing Plan intended to reduce GHG emissions statewide and would be generally consistent with local plans and programs Connected 2050 RTP/SCS) designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, the project would have less than significant impact and mitigation is not necessary.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
f.
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g.
Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
Setting:
In the City of Santa Maria, the use and storage of hazardous materials is primarily regulated by the Uniform Fire Code. Transport of hazardous materials and waste on public streets is primarily regulated by the California Vehicle Code and the SMMC. Storage and disposal of hazardous wastes is primarily regulated by the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services Division (EHS) through their Hazardous Waste Generator Program as authorized by the State Health and Safety Code. Any business that stores hazardous materials in accordance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code must provide either a hazardous materials inventory statement (HMIS) or a hazardous materials management plan (HMMP) to the Fire Chief of the City of Santa Maria and the County of Santa Barbara. In addition, the City of Santa Maria Fire Department and the County EHS require a Business Plan in accordance with State regulations for businesses that store and use hazardous waste (City of Santa Maria 1995).
The specific site is not listed as a cleanup site on the California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) EnviroStor database. Additionally, the site is not listed on the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Geotracker system (DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022). Lastly, the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department does not list this site as a location of an abandoned oil well head associated with historical oil field operations.
Discussion:
a -b. Future development of the project site would include the temporary use and storage of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. during construction. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and state environmental and workplace safety laws. Additionally, the construction contractor would be required to implement BMPs for the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials during all construction activities. With required adherence to federal and state regulations for hazardous materials impacts related to the risk of exposure, upset, or accidents involving hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The proposed zoning would not allow for land uses that would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
c. No elementary schools are located within a quarter mile of the proposed project, there are two elementary schools both approximately 0.50 miles to the east and west of the project site.
Construction of the project would include the temporary use and storage of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
oils, paints, etc. during construction. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and state environmental and workplace safety laws. Additionally, the construction contractor would be required to implement BMPs for the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials during all construction activities. The proposed zoning would not allow for land uses that would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. d. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized release from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous waste and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. As discussed above, the project site does not contain a hazardous waste disposal facility, an underground storage tank, a contaminated drinking water well or a solid waste facility from which there is known migration of hazardous waste. The proposed zoning and development of the hotel project would not create any conditions that would lead to the project location being listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impacts related to significant hazards to the public or the environment from hazardous materials pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would occur.
e. There are no private airstrips within or in the vicinity of the project site. The Santa Maria Airport lies approximately 5.00 miles to the southwest of the project site. Based on the currently adopted 1993 Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Plan for the Santa Maria Public Airport (Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Commission 1993) and the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within the Santa Maria Airport area of influence or noise contours.
Based on the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Santa Barbara County 2022), the project site would still not be located within the airport's noise contours, therefore no specific noise mitigation related to airport related noise is necessary. The site is outside of all airport safety zones, and airport influence areas therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. f. The proposed project does not include any characteristics or features that would interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would not result in the closure of any roads. Development of the project site would utilize new access driveways that would be developed in compliance with local and state safety regulations. All access improvements would be required to comply with applicable CBC and California Fire Code requirements pertaining to emergency access. Therefore, impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan would be less than significant. g. The project site is surrounded by hotels and industrial development. The project site is not located adjacent to a wildland fire area. Based on the Safety Element, the most significant wildland fire hazards for development within the city are associated with the coastal sage scrub and grass -covered slopes in the Casmalia and Solomon Hills south of the city. The project site is located approximately 11 miles north of these areas and is located within a heavily urbanized area; therefore, impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
X
b.
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site;
X
ii . substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
ii i. create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
X
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d.
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Setting:
The proposed project would require on -site grading, which could result in the erosion of onsite soils and sedimentation during heavy wind or rain events. The project would be required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements, including a state Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment from erosion, into local surface water drainages. The project would further be required to comply with the adopted standards contained within the City of Santa Maria's Municipal Code, Section 8-12 (wastewater) and 8-12A Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
Environmental Checklist
(stormwater). Section 8-12A.04 also incorporates the Post -Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region (Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Resolution No. R3-2013-0032). By incorporating these design provisions and permit review and procedures by the City, the project would not violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
The project site is located within the Santa Maria Watershed, one of the largest coastal drainage basins in California, and includes all areas tributary to the Cuyama, Siquoc, and Santa Maria Rivers. The Santa Maria Watershed overlies the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, covering more than 280 square miles in the southwestern corner of San Luis Obispo County and the northwestern corner of Santa Barbara County. Historically, the City pumped water from the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin as its sole water supply until the City began receiving State Water Project (SWP) water from the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) in 1997. The Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin is currently under a 2008 court -ordered stipulation that allows the City to derive its water supply from local groundwater, associated return flows from imported SWP water that may be recaptured in the basin, and a share of the yield of Twitchell Reservoir operations.
The stipulation divided the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin into three management areas, the largest being the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA), which overlies the city. Since the late 1960s, the basin has alternately experienced significant recharge (recovery) and decline, which, collectively, reflect a general long-term stability as groundwater levels in both aquifer zones have fluctuated between historical -low and near historical -high levels over alternating 5- to 15 -year periods.
Groundwater levels throughout the SMVMA have shown this trend, but with different ranges of fluctuation and groundwater levels have repeatedly recovered to near or above previous historical -high levels, most recently in 2002 (Luhdorff and Scalmaninin Consulting Engineers 2018).
The provisions of the 2008 court -ordered stipulation require that an annual assessment be prepared for the Santa Maria Valley Management Area. According to the 2017 Annual Report (Luhdorff and Scalmaninin Consulting Engineers 2018), the conditions in the SMVMA do not satisfy all the criteria delineated in the Stipulation for defining a severe water shortage as a result, it was concluded that there is no finding of severe water shortage conditions in the SMVMA in 2017.
In 2016, groundwater resource planning and data reporting requirements under the California Department of Water Resource (DWR) Sustainable Groundwater Management Program (SGMA) commenced. Since the SMVMA is part of an adjudicated basin, the DWR considers it already managed by the court and, thus, SGMA groundwater resource planning requirements do not apply (Luhdorff and Scalmaninin Consulting Engineers 2018).
The closest body of water to the project site is the Santa Maria River, located approximately 0.45 miles east of the project site. Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, the project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain. Based on the DOC Santa Barbara County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located within an area with the potential for tsunami inundation.
Discussion:
a. Development of the hotel would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements, including a state Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment from erosion, into local surface water drainages. Future development of the hotel would also be required to comply with the adopted standards contained within the City's Municipal Code, Section 8-12 (wastewater) and 8-12A (stormwater). Section 8-12 incorporates the Post -Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region (Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] Resolution No. R3-2013-0032). By incorporating these design provisions and permit review and approval procedures by the City, the project would not Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Future uses on -site would require new connections to the City's water services. The City utilizes the following available water supply sources: local groundwater, purchased water from the SWP, associated return flows recaptured from the SMGB, assigned rights to water from the SMGB, and assigned rights to augmented yield from Twitchell Reservoir. The City's water supply is expected to reliably meet the projected city water demands and have an available supply in excess through 2040, with the majority of this demand being met by imported state water (City of Santa Maria 2016). Based on the type of potential future development to be allowed onsite, such as development of a hotel, and the sources of future water supply, the project would not result in a substantial decrease of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. c. i-iv. The project would be required to provide landscaped open area to address infiltration and water quality requirements. By incorporating these design provisions, and permit review and procedures by the City, the project would not violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Based on the FEMA NFHL Viewer, the project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain. However, the project site is adjacent to a County of Santa Barbara flood control channel. The site plan for the hotel has been designed to consider the easements and avoid any encroachment into the adjacent flood control channel. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d. In 2017, the City of Santa Maria prepared a Hazard Mitigation Plan (an annex to the Santa Barbara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan) which describes specific hazard prevention measures and floodplain development requirements for projects that could be subject to flooding. Principally, the Santa Maria River levee, built by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, has been designed to protect the city from a "100 -year" flood event. Further, all potential development occurring within a floodplain would be required to follow an established development review process and may be subject to additional federal, state, and local review and permits as required by the Floodplain Administrator and the Santa Maria Municipal Code.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the project area is located entirely within an area of minimal flood hazard. No potential impacts from flood hazards are expected.
Twitchell Dam is the closest potential source of dam inundation in the City of Santa Maria, located approximately 5.20 miles northeast of the project site. The dam was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1958 and is primarily used for groundwater recharge and flood control. Twitchell Dam is not used for perennial water storage. In the event of dam or levee failure, a significant portion of the city would be inundated by flooding. However, the probability of total dam failure and levee failure is remote, and the dam only periodically holds water and is not a reservoir. Therefore, potential impacts from dam failure are considered to be less than significant.
The project site is approximately 11 miles east from the Pacific Ocean and would not be at risk of inundation by a tsunami. There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site that are large enough to produce a seiche and the project site is not located in an area prone to landslides, mud slides, soil slips, or slumps; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
e. As discussed in the threshold analysis above, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The project includes stormwater treatment and storage facilities and would not conflict with the Central Coastal Basin Plan, or other water quality control plans. The project would not conflict with SGMA, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to hydrology or water quality; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Physically divide an established community?
X
b.
Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Setting:
The project site is currently undeveloped and is bordered on the west side by the Fairfield Inn & Suites as well as the Candlewood Suites and to the south by the Reddaway trucking company yard. To the east of the property is an undeveloped industrial site in the PD/CM zone, and to the north is a County of Santa Barbara flood control channel as well as the Gateway Business Center on the north side of the channel. The project site has an HCM general plan land use designation and PD/CM zoning designation. The purpose of the HCM general plan designation is to permit activities that manufacture and retail on the same site as well as other heavy commercial uses which may be land extensive, require transport of materials by heavy truck, require large loading and docking areas, and where the possibilities of heavy noise generation exist. Typical types of uses anticipated within the HCM general plan designation include lumberyards, boat works, warehouses, building supply dealers, mobile home sales, farm equipment sales, equipment repair, and churches within an existing building.
Discussion:
a. The project does not propose project elements or components that would physically divide the site from surrounding areas and uses. The project would allow for the development of a hotel and would not conflict with the surrounding hotels, industrial development or business center adjacent to the project site. The project has been reviewed for compatibility with surrounding uses and would not create, close or impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other barriers to movement or accessibility within the community. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
b. The project proposes to change the current land use designation from HCM to CC, and the current zoning from PD/CM to PD/C-2. This change would allow a range of commercial developments, including hotels. The future development of the site has undergone review for consistency with the proposed CC general plan designation and PD/C-2 zoning standards, as well as overall compatibility with surrounding land uses and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to land use or planning; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
X
b.
Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
X
Setting:
Santa Maria's primary mineral resources are sand, rock, and oil. The Santa Maria River channel is considered to be a valuable mineral resource. The river contains the largest resources of Portland Cement Concrete -grade aggregate and almost 90% of the available alluvial sand and gravel resources in the Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo County region. The Santa Maria Basin is also a significant hydrocarbon (i.e., oil and gas) producing basin in California, historically allowing for the development of the oil industry throughout the region. Many of the areas oil wells have since been capped and abandoned due to the development and urbanization of the city. Based on the General Plan Resources Management Element, the project site is located within the City's area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. (City of Santa Maria 2001).
Discussion:
a -b.
The project parcel is located in an urban area of Santa Maria. The California Department of Conservation Well Finder (CalGEM GIS) confirms that there are no active oil wells within the project site. The potential for impacts to occur to mineral resources is insignificant considering the project site is located within a developed area of the City and is not a conducive location for mineral resource extraction or mining. Therefore, the impact on known mineral resources of value to the region and to residents of the state or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan would be less than significant. The area within the project vicinity has Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
been entirely built out with urban uses within. Therefore, the potential for future mining uses at the site is very low and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
Setting:
Community noise levels are typically measured in terms of A -weighted decibels (dBA). A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Equivalent noise level (Leg) is the average noise level on an energy basis for a specific time period. The duration of noise and the time of day at which it occurs are important factors in determining the impact of noise on communities. The CNEL and Day -Night Average Level (Ldn) account for the time of day and duration of noise generation. These indices are time -weighted average values equal to the amount of acoustic energy equivalent to a time -varying sound over a 24 -hour period. The Noise Element includes noise compatibility standards for noise exposure by land use, including interior and exterior noise standards (Table 7).
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Table 114-3. Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Categories
Standard dB
CNEL
Category
Uses
Interior
Exterior
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family, Mobile
Home
45 60
Noise -Sensitive Land
Uses
Motel, Hospital, School, Nursing Home,
Church, Library, and Other
45 60
Commercial
Retail, Restaurant, Professional Offices
55 65
Industrial
Manufacturing, Utilities, Warehousing,
Agriculture
65 70
Open Space
Passive Outdoor Recreation
--
65 Source: City of Santa Maria General Plan Noise Element, Table N-4.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include multiple hotels across the street from the protect site as well as tie single-family residences located to the south of the project approximately 700 feet away.
Discussion:
a. The project is located in an urbanized area and is currently undeveloped and is bordered on the west side by the Fairfield Inn & Suites as well as the Candlewood Suites and to the south by the Reddaway trucking company yard. To the east of the property is undeveloped industrial development and to the north is a County of Santa Barbara flood control channel as well as the Gateway Business Center. Proposed construction activities onsite and associated construction -related noise would be temporary but will take place adjacent to surrounding hotels and professional offices and therefore would have the potential to exceed City exterior noise thresholds. However, with adherence to City construction work hours, implementation of noise control for stationary equipment, and proper maintenance of all equipment, unnecessary temporary increased noise levels can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Following construction, future development uses would not result in a significantly noticeable increase over existing vehicle noise in the area. The project site is surrounded by some noise generating uses such as industrial development. However, the industrial development is not heavy in nature but of the light and commercial manufacturing type. Adjacent industrial development includes a business park and trucking yard. The daily operations do not include noisy elements that generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, impacts related to generation of permanent operational noise levels in excess of standards established in local plans would be less than significant. b. Potential future development of the project parcel would include the construction of a new hotel and installation of new utility connections. The future development of the site will not include pile driving or other high impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne noise or groundborne vibration during construction. Heavy equipment used during construction would generate groundborne noise and vibration, but these activities would be limited in duration and consistent with other standard construction activities. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
c. There are no private airstrips within or in the vicinity of the project site. The Santa Maria Airport lies approximately 5 miles to the southwest of the project site. Based on the currently adopted 2023 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Santa Maria Public Airport and the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within the Santa Maria Airport area of influence or noise contours. Therefore, no specific noise mitigation related to airport related noise is necessary, and impacts associated with future development of the project workers or occupants exposure to excessive noise levels from aircraft would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
NOI-1 Construction Activity Noise. During construction of any future development within the project parcel, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays in accordance with the General Plan Noise Element. No construction shall occur on Sundays or federal or state holidays. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours.
NOI-2 Equipment Noise. The applicant shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards.
• Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.
• Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent hotels and offices as feasible.
• Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.
• Workers' Radios. All noise from workers' radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at the adjacent hotels or offices near construction activity. • Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.
• Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.
The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce overall noise levels from construction activity and would reduce residual impacts to less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Setting:
Santa Maria consistently has been the fastest growing city in Santa Barbara County over the last two decades. From Census 2000 to Census 2010, 90% of the county's population growth occurred in the City of Santa Maria. It is anticipated that this trend will continue throughout the current decade as Santa Maria continues to be the hub for Northern Santa Barbara County.
Discussion:
a. The project includes the GPZ and Planned Development Permit to allow for the construction of the proposed hotel permitted under the proposed PD/C-2 zoning designation. The hotel would create 12 new jobs, which would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and would not result in the need for development of new housing. Lastly, future development of the project site would be infill development and would not result in the extension of roads or other infrastructure to a previously undeveloped area. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant. b. The project site is undeveloped, and no housing currently exists on the site. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to population or housing; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a.
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
X
ii . Police protection?
X
ii i. Schools?
X
iv. Parks?
X
v. Other public facilities?
X
Setting:
Fire and police protection services are provided by the city. The city is served by six fire stations, where emergency services, public education programs, fire prevention, and life safety services are provided to the city's residents by the Santa Maria City Fire Department (SMFD). The Santa Maria Police Department (SMPD) provides law enforcement services for the city. SMPD provides a full range of professional police services, including civil order, preventative patrol, investigations, traffic control and enforcement, criminalistics, crime prevention, drug enforcement and drug abuse prevention. The city's elementary and junior high schools are within the Santa Maria -Bonita School District, and the city's high schools are within the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District.
Discussion:
a. i. Future development of the project site would be served by the SMFD. The nearest fire station is Fire Station #3, located at 2305 Preisker Lane, approximately 0.50 miles north of the project site. The proposed change in general plan designation and zoning to CC and PD/C-2 would not substantially increase demand on fire services. Any future development permit applications submitted for development on the project site would be reviewed by the SMFD for conformance with applicable regulations and standards.
Development impact fees would be collected at the time of approval of development permits for the provision of capital facilities for fire services. No new or physically altered public service facilities or personnel would be required as a result of the proposed project; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. ii. Future development of the project site would be served by the SMPD, located at 1111 West Betteravia Road, approximately 3.90 miles southwest of the project site. The Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
project does not propose a new use or activity that would require additional police services above what is normally provided for similar surrounding hotel uses. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for police protection; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. iii. The project site is located within the Santa Maria -Bonita and Santa Maria Joint Union High School Districts. Under the proposed PD/C-2 zoning, future development on the project site would be for a hotel. Future development of the hotel would anticipate patrons to be of a transitory nature which would not impact surrounding schools.
Therefore, the project would not result in a need for new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. iv. The City's recreation system is comprised of several local parks and recreational facilities. The nearest public park to the project site is Preisker Park, located approximately 0.50 miles to the north. Future development of the site into a hotel would not result in an increased demand on existing park facilities in the vicinity and would not result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
v. As discussed above, the proposed project would be subject to applicable fees to offset negligible increased demands on public facilities; therefore, impacts related to other public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to public services; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
16. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a.
Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b.
Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
Setting:
The City's recreation system is comprised of several local parks and recreational facilities, which are managed by the City Department of Recreation and Parks. The department operates 234 acres of developed parkland in 27 neighborhood and community parks.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit
GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001
January 2024
Environmental Checklist
Discussion:
a -b.
The City's recreation system is comprised of several local parks and recreational facilities.
Future development of a hotel would not result in increased usage of existing park facilities in the vicinity to the point that would result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities.
The proposed project would not increase use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. In addition, the proposed project does not include the construction of recreational facilities or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Future development of the project site would include a hotel that would not require development or expansion of existing recreational facilities; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to recreation; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
Setting:
The CEQA Guidelines use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the basis for determining significant impacts unless the Guidelines provide specific exceptions. Based on the City of Santa Maria's adopted VMT Thresholds, transportation impacts are considered significant if the proposed project would result in a VMT per capita or office VMT per employee above 85% of the countywide average, consistent with technical guidance published by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). OPR's Technical Advisory lists the following screening thresholds for land use projects. These types of development projects are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and therefore, a less than significant adverse impact on transportation. OPR's Technical Advisory suggests that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts using project size, maps, transit accessibility, and provision of affordable housing. The City's Environmental Procedures include screening criteria consistent with OPR and are as follows:
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
• A discretionary retail development project that is 50,000 square feet or less. Does not apply to regional shopping centers that predominately serve customers that live outside of the City limits.
• Affordable housing projects where a minimum of 20 percent of the units are deed restricted for low or very low income residents.
• Small discretionary development projects that would generate or attract fewer than 110 daily trips (per CEQA). Examples include a project with 11 or fewer single family residential units, 20 or fewer multi -family units, or an office of 6,800 square feet or less. • Residential and non-residential land uses located in the green Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) areas of the Countywide Average Home -Based VMT per Capita and per Employee Maps (Appendix A and B) are expected to generate VMT at 85 percent or less of the baseline average rate and are presumed to have less than significant VMT impacts. • Infrastructure projects
The City of Santa Maria's adopted threshold is 85% of the existing countywide baseline VMT per capita, as calculated within the City of Santa Maria for non-residential uses. The City threshold based on 85% of the countywide average would be 9.41 VMT (one-way trip). The applicant has provided a Traffic and Circulation Study titled Holiday Inn Express Project City of Santa Maria, CA (Study) completed by Associated Transportation Engineers on December 8, 2021 which is summarized below. The complete Study is attached to this document in the appendices (Appendix B).
Discussion:
a -b. The project includes a GPZ and Planned Development Permit to allow for the future development of a hotel permitted under the General Commercial zone district. The project applicant has provided a site plan for the development of a hotel and estimates that 12 employees would be utilized to operate the hotel. According to the Study, "Hotel developments are unique in that the majority of trips are generated by hotel guests from outside the community coming to visit the area for work and leisure purposes. These work and leisure trips would occur without the development of the hotel since the destination (Santa Maria) is the trip attractor not the hotel. The hotel is in effect capturing those work and leisure trips by providing lodging for travelers. This type of land use is not specifically identified in the State or Caltrans guidelines which address per capita home base (residential) and employee work base (office) trips.". The VMT analysis addresses the hotel work -based employee trips only. The project meets the screening criteria to screen out VMT impacts because the project would generate fewer than 110 daily trips (per CEQA) for employee trips. Trip generation estimates were calculated for the conceptual plan using rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual for hotel employees. The plan for the hotel is to utilize 12 employees to operate the hotel and would result in approximately 24 average daily trips.
Furthermore, the City completed equivalent local -serving retail site estimates as shown in Table 12 44. The equivalent analysis utilized the ITE manual to estimate weekday daily trip generation estimates.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Table 1244. Equivalent Retail Site Estimate
Land Use
ITE Code
Units'
Size
Avg
Rate
Weekday
Daily Trip
Generation
Estimate
Hotel
310
Rooms
93 7.99
743
8.36 777.48
Shopping Center - Equivalent to Hotel
820
KSF
GLA
20.07 37.01
743
20.53 37.75
777A8
Shopping Center - Maximum size per
VMT screening threshold
820
KSF
GLA
50.01 37.01
1,851
1-00
37.75 3775
1 Thousand Square Feet Gross Leasable Area (KSF GLA)
The square footage of equivalent retail uses shown in Table 12 a-4 demonstrates that the hotel proposal would be the approximate equivalent of a 20,000590 square -foot shopping center which falls within the local -retail screening criteria of less than 50,000 square -feet. Therefore, tiis portion of the proposed project would be screened out from additional VMT analysis per the City's Environmental Policies and Procedures and impacts would be less than significant.
The City is required to review projects for policy consistency with the City's General Plan Circulation Element to determine if the additional traffic generated by the project will result in a delay in intersection operations or excessive queuing into adjacent upstream intersections. This analysis uses a Level of Service (LOS) metric, which is a different analysis than the VMT analysis used to determine a potential environmental impact under CEQA Guidelines section 150643, subdivision (b). If an intersection or roadway segment deteriorates to a LOS "E" or worse as a result of the project, the project will need to improve the operational deficiency to maintain roadway operations at a LOS "D" or better. This is required on a case -by -case basis as determined by the City and the operational implications of projects shall be reviewed through the submittal of a Local Traffic Study specific to the individual project. Since the LOS analysis and improvements are distinct from the VMT metric identified by the CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), as 'the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts', actions necessary to correct the operational deficiencies may be addressed through the City's project entitlement process as conditions of approval and not as CEQA impacts. The project's traffic and circulation study states that with the additional trips generated by the project, including cumulative levels of traffic with existing surrounding development, that the Broadway/Roemer intersection would operate at a LOS B for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is an acceptable LOS. This determination is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition (2021) trip rates for hotels.
The City is currently reviewing an application for the development of a new truck service, sales, and rental business that would be located on Preisker Lane, approximately 1/4 mile to the east of the project site. A traffic study has been completed for that project (Orosz Engineering Group, June, 2023) using the methodology outlined in the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, using synchro modeling software. The analysis in this study concludes that the Broadway/Roemer intersection currently operates at a LOS F during the AM and PM Peak Hour periods. Therefore, the City has determined that a signal warrant analysis is required for the project.
While both studies are correct in their conclusions for the method of analysis done, the Preisker Lane project's study demonstrated that further analysis of the intersection is necessary. The results of the analysis have been provided to the City and have determined that a signal is not warranted at the Broadway/Roemer intersection. To comp y with City transportation po icics regarding LOS, tie app icant wi be required, as a condition of approva for tie P armed Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Deve opment Permi , to provide a tra-ic signa warrant ana ysis -or tie intersection o Broadway (SR -135) and Roemer Way consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). At the time of bui ding permit app ication, the warrant ana ysis shal be reviewed by the City's Public Works Department to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If tie ana ysis indicates t1a- a -raffic signa is required, tie deve oper sia be responsib a or instal ing a traffic signa at the intersection.
Since the project has been determined to have no impact on the CEQA metric of VMT, and the signal analysis and the possible signalization of the intersection (determined to be not recuired) will not be an environmental mitigation. The City traffic policy would have will -been implemented through a discretionary condition for the signal warrant analysis, which has been determined to not be and i-warranted, of the signalization of the Roemer/Broadway intersection. Therefore, the project does not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.
c. The project would be developed on an existing parcel and would not alter or affect existing street and intersection networks. The project would be required to comply with City design standards for vehicular access and circulation, including construction and remediation haul trips, and the current Fire Code. Compliance with these standards would prevent hazardous design features and would ensure adequate and safe site access and circulation. The project would not introduce incompatible uses, including vehicles or equipment, to the site or the surrounding area. There would be no impact.
d. Access to the project would be provided from Roemer Court. The proposed project would be required to comply with all building, fire, and safety codes and development plans would be subject to review and approval by the City's Municipal Code. Required review by these departments would ensure the circulation system for the project site would provide adequate emergency access. In addition, the proposed project would not require temporary or permanent closures to roadways and would result in no impacts.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to transportation; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place or
cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
vi. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
vii. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American
tribe.
X
Setting:
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project.
Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project's impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
Passed in 2004, Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires cities and counties to consult with Native American tribes to help protect traditional tribal cultural places as part of a general plan adoption or amendment. Unlike AB 52, SB 18 is not an amendment to, or otherwise associated with, CEQA. Instead, SB 18 requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county's general plan, the city or county must conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Under SB 18, cities and counties must notify the appropriate Native American tribe(s) of intended adoption or amendments to general plans and offer the opportunity for the tribe(s) to consult regarding traditional tribal cultural places within the proposed plan area.
The City sent letters to the local Native American contacts identified by the NAHC on June 13, 2023.
To date, the City has not received any requests for consultation from local tribes that were notified regarding the proposed project.
Discussion:
a -b.
The project site does not contain any known tribal cultural resources that have been listed, or are eligi.ble for listing, in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). The potential for the existence of buried archaeological materials within the project area is considered low based on the historic physical setting and extent of previous disturbance. In addition, the City provided notification to local tribes regarding the proposed project and received no requests for consultation. Despite the low sensitivity of the site, discovery of unknown subsurface resources during future earthmoving activities associated with future development of the project site is always a possibility. Unknown significant subsurface resources, as described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, would be considered significant tribal cultural resources, as well. Standard mitigation has been proposed to ensure impacts to any unknown resources that may be encountered during project development would be avoided and/or minimized; therefore, potential project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
TCR-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource. In the event that a potentially significant tribal cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100 -foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a qualified archaeologist, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts; fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the CCIC, located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a.
Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b.
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c.
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
X
d.
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e.
Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Setting:
The City operates its own wastewater collection and treatment system. The City's wastewater collection system consists of eight wastewater basins with associated trunk sewers and one treatment plant. The Department of Utilities is responsible for delivering water, treating wastewater, refuse collection, recycling, operating the Santa Maria Regional Landfill and its Household Hazardous Waste Facility, street sweeping, and regulatory compliance. The Water Resources Operation and Maintenance Section is responsible for supplying residents with potable water for domestic, industrial, and fire protection purposes. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services consist of six distinct areas:
refuse collection/residential, refuse collection/commercial, landfill disposal operations, street sweeping, recycling operations, and regulatory compliance. PG&E is the primary electricity provider and SoCalGas is the primary natural gas provider for the city.
Discussion:
a. The project site is located in a fully urbanized area with existing utility infrastructure in place.
The City provides water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste services to the City of Santa Maria. The project also proposes three stormwater catchment basins to reduce stormwater runoff. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electricity to the project site. Additionally, natural gas on the project site would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
(SoCal Gas), and the City has access to multiple telecommunications providers including Verizon, T -Mobile, AT&T, etc. that would provide service.
The existing infrastructure noted above has adequate capacity to support the proposed project.
Therefore, no additional facilities would be required as a result of project implementation and this impact would be less than significant.
b. The City's 2015 Utility Capacity Study provides zoning demand factors for estimated water usage. The site's existing CM Zone designation was estimated to use 2,600 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) and the proposed C-2 zone designation was estimated to use 2,400 gpd/acre. Additionally, according to the City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City's water supply would meet projected water demands through 2045 (City of Santa Maria 2020). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c. The City Utilities Department owns and operates the wastewater system for the City of Santa Maria. Currently, the City disposes of all of its treated wastewater through percolation ponds under its Waste Discharge Requirements permit. The City's wastewater treatment plant was expanded in 2009 and has a current capacity of 13.5 million gallons per day, allowing the City to serve a population of up to 120,000 people. The project site is adjacent to two different sewer segments that could potentially require upgrades due to lack of capacity which the City had identified in a 2012 Utilities Study. The applicant utilized Water Systems Consulting, Inc. to complete a Sewer Capacity Study dated 1/30/2023 for the project. The complete study is attached to this document in the Appendices (Appendix C). The new flow from the proposed development was added to the collection system at the anticipated point of connection and capacity was evaluated under peak hour flow conditions. The flow generation of the proposed project was added to the existing City model for this analysis. Based on the analysis completed, the City currently has capacity for the proposed project. The proposed project is not expected to trigger impacts to the capacity constrained sewer segments identified in the 2012 Utilities Study. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d -e.
The City currently disposes of solid waste at the Santa Maria Regional Landfill, located at 2065 East Main Street in Santa Maria. The City has also initiated development of a new landfill —the Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility (Los Flores Ranch Landfill; Facility No. 42 - AA -0076), located in the Solomon Hills approximately 8 miles southwest of the city and 0.5 mile east of US 101 in an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County. The new facility will have a design capacity of approximately 131 million cubic yards of waste with an estimated closure date of 2105. The permit for the new facility is consistent with the Santa Barbara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, which was approved by the California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) on October 18, 2011, as well as the standards adopted by CalRecycle, pursuant to PRC Section 44010. In addition, the design and planned operation of the facility is consistent with the State Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal as determined by the enforcement agency based on review of the January 11, 2011, Joint Technical Document, pursuant to PRC Section 44009.
The project would rely on the City's solid waste collection services and facilities. Based on the existing and projected available capacity, the proposed development would not result in the need for new or expanded solid waste facilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with generation of solid waste in excess of local infrastructure capacity and compliance with state and local solid waste regulations would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to utilities and service systems; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f.
Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g.
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
h.
Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
i.
Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Setting:
The project is located in an urban area within Santa Maria. The Integrated Regional Multi -Hazard Emergency Response Plan for the Cities of Santa Maria and Guadalupe was established in order to clearly delineate the planning areas procedures and policies when responding to a major emergency event. This includes any significant threat or potential disaster which could impact the health, safety, and property of the public within the planning area. The objectives of this plan include, but are not limited to, identifying authorities and their respective responsibilities for planning and response activities, establishing the policies for providing emergency information to the public, and describing the resources available to support emergency response activities.
The urbanized areas of Santa Maria are generally protected from most aspects of grassland and brush fires. However, accumulating weeds along roadsides and in vacant lots make even urban locations potentially hazardous from a wildland fire standpoint. For these reasons, an enforceable weed abatement program was established in 2017 to reduce these risks whenever structures are present.
The California Fire Code provides minimum standards for many aspects of fire prevention and suppression activities. These standards include provisions for emergency vehicle access, water supply, fire protection systems, and the use of fire-resistant building materials.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Discussion:
a. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service or road closures would occur as a result of project implementation; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b. The project is located within a developed site located within an urban area of Santa Maria.
Future development of the project site would not substantially change the existing topography of the project site. Future development would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention within the CBC and California Fire Code, including having adequate access to water for fire protection purposes, provision of fire detection equipment, fire sprinklers, etc.
Future development would also be required to comply with the City weed abatement program.
Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and potential impacts would be less than significant.
c. The project would include the installation of new electricity, water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur within existing developed land and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations; therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk from installation of new infrastructure would be less than significant.
d. The project site is generally flat and would not be located near a hillslope or in an area subject to downstream flooding or landslides. The project does not include any design elements that would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s) incorporated into the project:
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to wildfire; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
CONSULTATION AND DATA SOURCES
CONSULTATION SOURCES
City Departments Consulted
Administrative Services
Attorney
Fire
Library
City Manager
Police
Public Works
Utilities
Recreation and Parks
X
X
X
X
County Agencies/Departments Consulted
Air Pollution Control District
Association of Governments
Flood Control District
Environmental Health
Fire (Hazardous Materials)
LAFCO
Public Works
Planning and Development
Other (list)
X
X
Special Districts Consulted
Santa Maria Public Airport
Airport Land Use Commission
Cemetery
Santa -Maria Bonita School District
Santa Maria Joint Union High School
Laguna County Sanitation District
Cal Cities Water Company
State/Federal Agencies Consulted
Army Corps of Engineers
Caltrans
CA Fish and Game
Federal Fish and Wildlife
FAA
Regional Water Quality Control Bd.
Integrated Waste Management Bd.
Other (list)
General Plan
X
X
X
X
X
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DATA SOURCES
Land Use Element
Circulation Element
Safety Element
Noise Element
Housing Element
Resources Management Element
Agricultural Preserve Maps
Archaeological Maps/Reports
Architectural Elevations
Biology Reports
CA Oil and Gas Maps
FEMA Maps (Flood)
Grading Plans
Site Plan
Topographic Maps
Aerial Photos
Traffic Studies
Trip Generation Manual (ITE)
URBEMIS Air Quality Model
Zoning Maps
Other (list)
Appendix
A - Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Analysis
B- Traffic and Circulation Study
C- Sewer Capacity Study
D - Response to Public Comments
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED:
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4, 2016. Available at:
http://wvvw.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf .
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016b. Area Designation Maps / State and National. October 2020.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm .
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2010. Fault Activity Map of California (2010). Available at:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ .
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ .
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. Santa Barbara County Tsunami Inundation Maps.
Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Tsunami/Maps/SantaBarbara.aspx .
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHC .
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS .
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018b. Special Plant and Animal Lists. Available at: http://vvww.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html > California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTCS). 2023. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ .
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ .
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .
City of Santa Maria. 2019. Zoning Ordinance/Map. Available at:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpu blisheddocu ment/10037/636837414217430000.
City of Santa Maria. 2015. 2012 Utilities Capacity Study. Available at:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpu blisheddocu ment/12210/635763605040230000 City of Santa Maria. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Available at:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpu blisheddocu ment/28900/637613361539900000.
City of Santa Maria. 2022. Santa Maria Municipal Code. Available at:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/santa_maria_ca/pub/municipal_code .
City of Santa Maria. 2020. City of Santa Maria Environmental Procedures and Guidelines. Available at:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6941 /637481268778030000.
Diblee, T. W. 1994. Geologic Map of the Santa Maria and Twitchell Dam Quadrangles. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71688.htm .
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home .
Luhdorff and Scalmaninin Consulting Engineers. 2017 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition — Santa Maria Valley Management Area. April 2018. Available at: https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showdocument?id=24051 .
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2023. Delivering Low -Emission Energy. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean- energy-solutions.page.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2022. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. January 2022 Limited Update. Available at:
https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ScopeContentJanuary2022-LimitedUpdates.pdf .
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2022. 2022 Ozone Plan. Available at:
https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-Ozone-Plan.pdf .
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2012. Regional Growth Forecast 2010-2040.
Available at: http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2010- 2040.pdf.
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). 2023. Santa Maria Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available at:
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/smx_al ucp_v2_fi nal. pdf.
U.S. Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey.
Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. National Wetlands Inventory (Wetlands Mapper). Accessed on https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC). Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Amphibian & Reptiles: Species Information for California Red - Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Accounts/Amphibians-Reptiles/ >.
Woodring, W.P. and Bramlette, M.N. 1950. Geology and Paleontology of the Santa Maria District California, Geological Survey Professional Paper 222. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0222/report.pdf > Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
2. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
X
3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
Discussion:
Proposed development of the land uses permitted under the proposed C-2 zoning designation within the project site have the potential to result in temporary impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level, including but not limited to, fugitive dust controls, diesel -idling minimization, nesting bird avoidance, inadvertent discovery of archaeological and paleontological resources protocol and noise control measures.
When project impacts are considered along or in combination with other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project's potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project -related impacts to a less -than -significant level. Based on implementation of identified project -specific mitigation measures and the relatively limited number and extent of potential impacts, the cumulative effects of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
With incorporation of mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings and this impact would be less than significant.
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
X
X
X
X
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
X
X
X
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Services Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
DETERMINATION
On the basis of the Initial Study, the staff of the Community Development Department:
Finds that the proposed project is a Class _ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION and no further environmental review is required.
Finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X Finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Finds that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to acceptable standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)/SUBSEQUENT EIR/SUPPLEMENTAL EIR/ADDENDUM is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to acceptable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
G.le.e.AA4
Cody Graybehl Chuen Wu
Environmental Analyst Environmental Officer
i1Vo(Z-t
Date
City of Santa Maria
Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street, #101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
805-925-0951
tlo/24,z41
Date
Holiday Inn Express GPZ and Planned Development Permit January 2024 GPZ2022-0001 & PD2022-0001 Environmental Checklist
adre
associates, inc.
El ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
December 8, 2023
Project No. 2202-2051
Lotus Management Company
6030 Hellyer Avenue, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95138
Attention: Mr. Jiten Patel
Appendix A
Subject: Letter Report, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (Second Revision), Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project, Roemer Court, Santa Maria, California
Dear Mr. Patel:
Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), has prepared this revised letter report documenting the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis (Analysis) for the proposed Holiday Inn Express Project (Project) at Roemer Court, Santa Maria, California (Project Site). The analysis has been prepared for Lotus Management Company (Lotus) in accordance with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District's (SBCAPCD) Air Quality Sections document (SBCAPCD, 2022), the Santa Barbara County Department of Planning and Development (SBCDPD) Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (SBCDPD, 2021), and the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan.
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the criteria pollutant and GHG emissions that would be emitted by the proposed Project and to compare it to applicable air quality/GHG regulations and plans. In response to Lotus' General Plan Amendment/Zone Change and Planned Development Permit application, the City of Santa Maria (City) Community Development Department (CDD) requested on April 22, 2022 that an air quality and GHG emissions analysis be completed for the Proposed Project. In response, Lotus contacted Padre to prepare the Analysis for submittal to the City CDD, which occurred on July 6, 2022. In August of 2023, the City CDD requested a revision of the Analysis to include a GHG analysis based on a Project -Specific Efficiency Threshold. Padre provided the revised Analysis to Lotus on August 16, 2023. On November 29, 2023 during a conference call with the City CDD's Senior Planner, the City CDD requested that Padre revise the Analysis in accordance with the 2022 Scoping Plan'.
' It should be noted that the 2022 Scoping Plan was not finalized by CARB when the original air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis was prepared.
369 Pacific Street ■ San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ■ (805) 786-2650 • www.padreinc.com
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Site Description and Background
The Project Site is located at Roemer Court in the City of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, California. The Project Site consists of two vacant parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 128-003-047 and 128-003-048 totaling approximately 2.13 acres. There are similar transient lodging developments located to the west of the Project Site, commercial developments to the north and south, and a vacant lot located to the east. The U.S. 101 freeway is located approximately 0.25 miles to the northeast of the Project Site. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes located approximately 750 feet northwest of the Project Site and single-family homes located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the Project Site.
Project Description and Schedule
Construction of the proposed Project will occur over six phases which are anticipated to be completed over a period of approximately 13 months. The proposed Project consists of the development of a four-story Holiday Inn Express (Hotel) consisting of a total of approximately 56,049 square feet (ft2). The Hotel will include 93 rooms, guest common areas, back of the house facilities, and an indoor pool. The remaining parcel would be improved with an approximately 47,934 ft2 parking lot and landscaping. Grading activities are proposed to disturb approximately 2.13 acres with a cut of 1,685 cubic yards (CY), a fill of approximately 3,404 CY and an import volume of approximately 1,718 CY. In total, the Project includes the following components:
• Grading;
• Utilities Installation;
• Landscaping, Concrete and Paving;
• Foundation Work;
• Exterior Construction; and
• Interior Construction.
The construction schedule for proposed Project is anticipated to take approximately 13 months to complete; however, this schedule may be subject to change due to permitting, field conditions, and/or weather conditions. A summary of the Proposed Project construction tasks and basic schedule is shown below in Table 1.
- 2
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Table 1. Project Schedule
Activity
Working Days
Grading
10 Utilities Installation
110
Landscaping, Concrete and Paving
92 Foundation Work
44 Exterior Construction
110
Interior Construction
220
The proposed Project will be constructed in full compliance with the 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBC) Title 24 Part 6 Building Efficiency Energy Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, and 2022 CBC Title 24 Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
The CBC consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The 2022 CBC Title 24 Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California's energy demand. CALGreen and includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all new ground -up construction of residential and non- residential structures.
Relevant 2022 CBC standards that will be implemented alongside the proposed Project include the following:
• Inclusion of a photovoltaic system with energy storage system; • Routine energy system efficiency inspections;
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Five EV stations are proposed; • Use of low VOC emitting building materials and architectural coatings throughout; • Planned reduction of indoor water use to 20 percent below baseline use per CALGreen;
• Use of water efficient landscaping designs and plants; and • Permanently anchored bicycle parking area.
3 Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Criteria pollutants include Ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM1o), and particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM25).
Ozone. O3 is formed in the atmosphere through complex photochemical reactions involving NOx, ROG (also known as reactive organic compounds), and sunlight that occur over several hours. Since O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is formed as a result of photochemical reactions, it is classified as a secondary or regional pollutant. These O3 -forming reactions take time, and therefore peak ozone levels are often found downwind of major source areas. O3 is considered a respiratory irritant and prolonged exposure can reduce lung function, aggravate asthma, and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. Children and those with existing respiratory diseases are at greatest risk from ozone exposure.
Carbon Monoxide. CO is primarily formed through the incomplete combustion of organic fuels. Higher CO values are generally measured during winter when dispersion is limited by morning surface inversions. Seasonal and diurnal variations in meteorological conditions lead to lower values in summer and in the afternoon. CO is an odorless, colorless gas. CO affects red blood cells in the body by binding to hemoglobin and reducing the amount of oxygen that can be carried to the body's organs and tissues, which can cause health effects to those with cardiovascular disease and can affect mental alertness and vision.
Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitric Oxide (NO) is a colorless gas formed during combustion processes which rapidly oxidizes to form Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), a brownish gas.
The highest nitrogen dioxide values are measured in urbanized areas with heavy traffic.
Exposure to NO2 may increase the potential for respiratory infections in children and cause difficulty in breathing among healthy people, but especially asthmatics.
Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, reactive gas that is produced from burning sulfur - containing fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as by other industrial processes. Generally, the highest concentrations of SO2 are found near large industrial sources. SO2 is a respiratory irritant that can cause narrowing of the airways, leading to wheezing and shortness of breath.
Long-term exposure to SO2 can cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing cardiovascular disease.
Particulate Matter. Ambient air quality standards have been set for PM10 and PM2.5.
Both consist of different types of particles suspended in the air such as metal, soot, smoke, dust and fine mineral particles. The particles' toxicity and chemical activity can vary, depending on the source. The primary source of PM10 emissions appears to be from the soil via road use, construction, agriculture, and natural windblown dust. Other sources include sea salt, combustion processes (such as those in gasoline or diesel vehicles), and wood burning.
Primary sources of PM2.5 emissions come from construction sites, wood stoves, fireplaces and diesel truck exhaust. Particulate matter is a health concern because when inhaled it can cause permanent lung damage. While both sizes of particulates can be dangerous when inhaled, PM2.5 tends to be more damaging because it remains in the lungs. -4
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
CURRENT AIR QUAILTY ATTAINMENT STATUS
Santa Barbara County (County) is currently in attainment for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, the County is currently in nonattainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for O3 (8 -hour standard) and the PM10 (annual arithmetic mean and 24 standard).
GREENHOUSE GASES
GHGs, defined as any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere, include but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (0O2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorocarbons. These GHGs trap and build up heat in the atmosphere near the earth's surface, a process commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect. The atmosphere and the oceans are reaching their capacity to absorb CO2 and other GHGs, leading to exacerbated global climate change in the future. Unlike criteria pollutants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, the role GHGs have on climate change is a local, regional, and global issue. There is widespread international scientific consensus that human -caused increases in GHGs have, and will continue to contribute to climate change; although, there is uncertainty regarding the magnitude and rate of warming.
Climate change is having and will continue to have widespread impacts on California's environment, water supply, energy consumption, public health, and economy. Many related impacts that we see today include an increased frequency of fires, floods, severe storms, and heat waves (CGOPR, 2018). Documented effects of climate change in California include increased average, maximum, and minimum temperatures, decreased spring runoff to the Sacramento River, shrinking glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, sea -level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay, warmer temperatures in Lake Tahoe, Mono Lake, and other major lakes, and plant and animal species found at elevations different than what has been historically observed (CGOPR, 2018).
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the concentration of CO2 (the primary GHG) has increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre- industrial times (Fifth Assessment Report) to well over 410 ppm in 2021 (Sixth Assessment Report) (IPCC, 2014 and IPCC, 2021). CO2 concentrations as of 2019 are increasing about 1.9 ppm/year and present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 2 million years. CO2 is used as a reference gas for climate change. To account for different GHG global warming potentials for other gases, emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, if the CO2 global warming potential is set at a reference value of 1, CH4 has a warming potential of 27.9 (i.e., 1 ton of methane has the same warming potential as 27.9 tons of CO2 [IPCC, 2021]), while nitrous oxide has a warming potential of 273. -5
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
REGULATORY THRESHOLDS
The SBCAPCD classifies construction projects as short-term projects and currently does not have thresholds of significance for evaluating the criteria pollutant emission impacts in place for such actions. Based on a review of current SBCAPCD rules, a significance threshold of 25 tons per year is an appropriate construction significance threshold for this study (SBCAPCD, 2022). The SBCAPCD establishes thresholds of significance for evaluating the criteria pollutant emissions impacts during the operational phase of projects. According to the SBCAPCD, if a proposed project's operational emissions are below the following thresholds, the project would not have a significant impact on air quality, either individually or cumulatively.
Table 2. Criteria Pollutant Thresholds for Operational Phases (AII Sources) ROG
(Ibs/day)
NOx
(Ibs/day)
PKo
(lb/day)
240
240
80 Table 3. Criteria Pollutant Thresholds for Operational Phases (Motor Vehicle Trips Only) ROG
NOx
(Ibs/day)
(Ibs/day)
25 25
Neither the SBCAPCD nor the City of Santa Maria have adopted GHG thresholds of significance for construction or operational GHG emissions. Therefore, as recommended by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), the significance of a Project's GHG emissions can be evaluated based on the Project's consistency with an applicable GHG reduction plan per the CEQA guidelines' (AEP, 2016).
In 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) codified a statewide GHG emissions reduction plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and in September 2016 Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) was signed in to law by the governor extending AB 32 to require that the State of California (State) reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2045. On December 22, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan which lays out a path to achieve State targets for carbon neutrality and to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan supports significant GHG reduction through a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, deploying clean technologies, clean fuels, sustainable development and carbon sequestration.
The current Title 24 Part 6 Building Efficiency Energy Standards and CALGreen energy efficiency and energy use reduction requirements are consistent with AB 32, SB 32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan; therefore, a project that meets the 2020 CBC requirements would be consistent with an applicable GHG reduction plan.
' CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b).
-6
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
Primary sources of pollutant emissions during the proposed Project's construction phase would result from the use of internal combustion engines and soil disturbance. Specifically, conventional construction equipment such as dozers, compactors, excavators, backhoes, loaders and paving machines, utilized during grading, demolition and construction activities would be used. Additional sources of air pollutant emissions include emissions from on -road motor vehicles used to transport materials and personnel, ROG emissions from asphalt paving during paving operations and ROG emissions during the application of architectural coatings.
Operational emissions would result primarily from emissions due to on -road motor vehicles and electrical consumption.
Emissions modeling was conducted to estimate the criteria pollutant and GHG emissions during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Emissions were estimated using the most recent emission factors and load factors obtained from the California Emissions Estimator Model® (CaIEEMod) User's Guide, Emission Factors (EMFAC) model and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Detailed source information is provided in Appendix A.
Construction and operational equipment emissions were estimated using the engine horsepower, engine emission factors, engine load factors and hours of engine use per day. On - road vehicle emissions were estimated using the vehicle type (i.e., passenger gasoline -powered vehicle, heavy-duty diesel -powered vehicle), engine emission factors and length of daily round trips. Operational emissions from on -road motor vehicle use were calculated using data from a client provided traffic study prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE, 2021).
Electricity use and associated emissions were estimated using estimated energy usage and emissions factors. Fugitive dust emissions from proposed soil disturbance activities related to the construction phase were calculated using emission factors, volumes of earth material disturbed, and areas of earth material disturbed. Emissions from asphalt and architectural coatings were calculated using proposed asphalt volumes and estimated architectural coating volumes. The proposed Project's construction schedule was estimated using a similar project's schedule for the Holiday Inn Express in Hollister California which was provided by Lotus. A tabulation of assumptions, references, and calculations for the Project emission estimates are provided in Appendix A. Tables 4 through 7 below lists the maximum daily estimated Project criteria pollutant emissions calculated by Padre for the proposed Project's construction and operational phases. Table 8 lists the yearly GHG emissions calculated by Padre for the proposed Project's construction and operational phases.
Table 4. Estimated Total Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Emissions
ROG
(tons/yr)
CO
(tons/yr)
NOx
(tons/yr)
SOx
(tons/yr)
PMio
(tons/yr)
PM2.5
(tons/yr)
Construction Emissions
5.03 2.19
0.95 0.007
0.04 0.04
SBCAPCD Thresholds:
25 25
25 25
25 25
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
-7
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Table 5. Estimated Project Construction Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG
(Ibs/day)
NOx
(Ibs/day)
Construction Emissions
0.04 1.99
As shown in Table 4, the Project's construction phase would not result in an exceedance of the SBCAPCD recommended thresholds for ROGs, CO, NOx, SOx, PM2.5 or PM10. The emissions analysis spreadsheets and the basis of criteria pollutant emissions analysis are provided in Appendix A.
Table 6. Estimated Total Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG
(Ibs/day)
CO
(Ibs/day)
NOx
(Ibs/day)
SOx
(Ibs/day)
PMio
(Ibs/day)
PM2.5
(Ibs/day)
Operational Emissions
2.54 70.11
8.07 0.27
0.59 0.57
SBCAPCD Thresholds:
240
--
240
--
80 --
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Table 7. Estimated Project Operational Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions Phase
Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG
(Ibs/day)
NOx
(Ibs/day)
Operational Emissions
1.14 7.02
SBCAPCD Thresholds:
25 25
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
As identified in Tables 6 and 7, the proposed Project's operational phase would not result in an exceedance of SBCAPCD maximum daily emissions thresholds for ROGs, NOx and/or PM10. The emission analysis spreadsheets and the basis of criteria pollutant emissions analysis are provided in Appendix A.
Table 8. Estimated Project Construction GHG Emissions
Phase
N2O
(Tons/Year)
CH4
(Tons/Year)
CO2
(Tons/Year)
MTCO2E1
(Per/Year)
Construction Emissions
0.05 0.10
669.2
622
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
8 Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS &
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Table 9. Estimated Operational Emissions
Emission Source
MTCO2E I year
With Guest Trips
MTCO2E / year
Without Guest Trips
Amortized Construction Emissions
21 21
Operational Emissions
4,574
368
Area
0.0 0.0
Energy
114
114
Mobile
4,422
217
Solid Waste
37 37
Water
0.01 0.01
Total Emissions12
4,594
389
Because neither the SBCAPCD nor the City of Santa Maria have adopted GHG emission thresholds of significance for construction or operational GHG emissions, the proposed Project's GHG emissions are provided for informational purposes only. Construction activities are estimated to generate approximately 622 MTCO2E per year (refer to Table 8), which amortized over a 30 -year period, the construction phase is estimated to generate 21 MTCO2E per year.
Operational emissions are estimated to generate approximately 4,594 MTCO2E per year (refer to Table 9). Hotel guest vehicle trips are estimated to be the primary source of operational GHG emissions. Without the inclusion of guest trips within calculations, Project operations would generate approximately 389 MTCO2E per year. It should be noted that these hotel guest trips would be generated regardless of Project implementation because work and leisure trips would occur without the development of the hotel since the destination (Santa Maria) is the trip attractor, not the hotel. In addition, the proposed Project includes the installation of up to five EV charging stations which would service guests with EVs.
The Project would be constructed in full compliance with CBC 2022 Title 24 Part 6 Building Efficiency Energy Standards and CALGreen, which are consistent with the goals outlined in AB 32, SB 32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan.
CONCLUSIONS
Criteria Pollutant Impacts
Based on the results of the criteria pollutant emissions analysis, the Project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed SBCAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable 1 Includes amortized construction emissions.
2 Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
9 Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
increase in criteria pollutants O3 or PM10 for which the County is currently in non -attainment status for under the State ambient air quality standards.
GHG Emissions Impacts
Construction and operational activities for the Project would generate GHG emissions; however, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHGs.
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding the Analysis, please contact Mr. Robert Vander Weele at (805) 786-2650, extension 134 / rvanderweele(a�padreinc.com.
Associates nc.
Robert Vander Weele, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Attachments:
Appendix A — Construction and Operational Emissions Model Tables - 10 -
Lotus Management Company
December 8, 2023 (2202-2051)
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
REFERENCES
Association of Environmental Professionals, 2016, Final White Paper - Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California, October 18.
Associated Transportation Engineers, 2021, Traffic and Circulation Study, Holiday Inn Express Project, City of Santa Maria, December 18.
California Air Resources Board, 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022.
California Air Resources Board. 2023a. EMission FACtor 2021 (EMFAC). Accessed online at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac .
California Air Resources Board. 2023b. Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Query Tool for years 2000-2020 (15th Edition). Accessed
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/greenhouse-gas-emission-inventory-0 . at
California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (CGOPR). 2018. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Statewide Summary Report.
Trinity Consultants. 2021a. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) User's Guide, Appendix D, Default Data Tables.
Trinity Consultants. 2021b. California Missions Estimator Model Users Guide, Version 2020-4-0.
Dated May.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), 2022, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents.
Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department (SBCDPD), 2021, Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Fifth Assessment Report.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Sixth Assessment Report.
adre
. associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS 8
LA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
APPENDIX A
EMISSIONS MODEL TABLES
Holiday Inn Express
Table 1 - Construction Offsite Exhaust Emissions Calculations August 16, 2023
Activity/Source
Source
Activity
Code
Vehicle
Type
Emission Factors (Ibs/mile)
Peak Day
Round
Trips per
day
Average
Round
Trips per
day
Length of
Round
Trip
(miles)
Duration,
days
Peak Day Emissions, Ibs/day
Total Emissions, Tons
ROG
CO
NOx
SO2
PMto
PM2.5
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NOx
SO2
PMts
PM2,5
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NOx
SO2
PM1O
PM2,5
N2O
CH4
CO2
Concrete - Within Santa Barbara County
Grading
Trucks - Heavy
1 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
10 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Electrical and Gas Utilities
Trucks - Heavy
2 T7tc-d55
0O0004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
110
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
Trucks - Heavy
3 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 1.0
0.6 60.0
92 0.00
0.01 0.18
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.03
0.000
199.63
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.89 Foundation
Trucks - Heavy
4 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 3.0
2.7 60.0
44 0.01
0.03 0.54
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.09
0.000
598.89
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.78 Exterior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
5 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 2.0
1.1 60.0
110
0.00 0.02
0.36 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.06 0.000
399.26
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.78 Interior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
6 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
220
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Maximum by Within Santa Barbara County:
0.01 0.03
0.54 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.09 0.000
598.89
0.0001
0.0006
0.01 0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.002
0.00001
11.78 Total Within Santa Barbara County
'--
0,0004
0,0015
0.03 0.0003
0.0004
0.0003
0.005
0.00002
29.45 Import Backfill - Within Santa Barbara
County
Grading
Trucks - Heavy
1 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 11.0
10.7 60.0
10 0.03
0.11 1.99
0.02 0.03
0.03 0.35
0.001
2195.9
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
10.72 Electrical and Gas Utilities
Trucks - Heavy
2 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
110
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.000
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
Trucks - Heavy
3 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
92 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Foundation
Trucks - Heavy
4 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
44 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Exterior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
5 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
110
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.000
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Interior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
6 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 0.0
0.0 60.0
220
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.000
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Maximum by Within Santa Barbara County:
0.03 0.11
1.99 0.02
0.03 0.03
0.35 0.00
2195.9
0.0001
0.0005
0.01 0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0017
0.00001
10.72 Total Within Santa Barbara County:
0.0001
0.0005
0.01 0.000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0017
0.00001
10.72 Export Soil - Within Santa Barbara County
Grading
Electrical and Gas Utilities
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
Foundation
Exterior Construction
Interior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
Trucks - Heavy
Trucks - Heavy
Trucks - Heavy
Trucks - Heavy
Trucks - Heavy
2 3
4 5
6 T7tc-d55
T7tc-d55
T7tc-d55
T7tc-d55
T7tc-d55
T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00302
0.00302
0.00302
0.00302
0.00302
0.00302
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00052
0.00052
0.00052
0.00052
0.00052
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
3.3 3.3
3.3 3.3
3.3 3.3
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
60.0 60.0
60.0 60.0
60.0 60.0
10 110
92 44
110
220
Maximum by Within Santa Barbara County:
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.00 0.00
o.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.00
0.00 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
o.o
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.00
0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.000
0.00 o.00
0.00 0.00
o.00
o.00
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.00
0.000
0.000
0.00 o.00
0.00 0.00
o.00
o.00
0.000
0.000
Total Within Santa Barbara County:
Equipment and Supplies - Within Santa
Barbara Coun
Grading
Trucks - Heavy
1 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 2.0
1.6 60.0
10 0.00
0.02 0.36
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.06
0.000
399.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.60 Electrical and Gas Utilities
Trucks - Heavy
2 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 1.0
0.3 60.0
110
0.00 0.01
0.18 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.03 0.000
199.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.59 Landscape, Concrete and Paving
Trucks - Heavy
3 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 2.0
1.1 60.0
92 0.00
0.02 0.36
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.06
0.000
399.3
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
10.22 Foundation
Trucks - Heavy
4 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 1.0
0.1 60.0
44 0.00
0.01 0.18
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.03
0.000
199.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.50 Exterior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
5 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 1.0
0.3 60.0
110
0.00 0.01
0.18 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.03 0.000
199.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.59 Interior Construction
Trucks - Heavy
6 T7tc-d55
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.3 1.0
0.0 60.0
220
0.00 0.01
0.18 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.03 0.000
199.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.90 Maximum by Within Santa Barbara County:
0.00 0.02
0.36 0.00
0.005
0.005
0.06 0.000
399.3
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.002
0.00001
10.22 Total Within Santa Barbara County:
0.0002
0.001
0.02 0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.003
0.00001
20.40 •
Auto and Light Truck Within Santa Barbara
County
Grading
Trucks - Light
1 LDT2-d
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.64 8.4
8.4 60.0
10 0.01
0.11 0.08
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.05
0.001
320.7
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.60 Grading
Autos
1 LDA-g
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.62 3.6
3.6 60.0
10 0.01
0.38 0.03
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.001
133.5
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.67 Electrical and Gas Utilities
Trucks - Light
2 LDT2-d
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.64 10.5
10.5 60.0
110
0.02 0.14
0.10 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.06 0.001
400.9
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
22.05 Electrical and Gas Utilities
Autos
2 LDA-g
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.62 4.5
4.5 60.0
110
0.01 0.48
0.04 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.002
166.9
0.00 0.03
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
9.18 Landscape, Concrete and Paving
Trucks - Light
3 LDT2-d
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.64 10.5
10.5 60.0
92 0.02
0.14 0.10
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.06
0.001
400.9
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
18.44 Landscape, Concrete and Paving
Autos
3 LDA-g
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.62 4.5
4.5 60.0
92 0.01
0.48 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.002
166.9
0.00 0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
7.68 Foundation
Trucks - Light
4 LDT2-d
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.64 10.5
10..5
60.0 44
0.02 0.14
0.10 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.06 0.001
400.9
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
8.82 Foundation
Autos
4 LDA-g
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.62 4.5
4.5 60.0
44 0.01
0.48 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.002
166.9
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.67 Exterior Construction
Trucks - Light
5 LDT2-d
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.64 24.5
24.5 60.0
110
0.04 0.33
0.23 0.01
0.02 0.02
0.15 0.002
935.5
0.00 0.02
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
51.45 Exterior Construction
Autos
5 LDA-g
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.62 10.5
10.5 60.0
110
0.02 1.11
0.09 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.004
389.5
0.00 0.06
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
21.42 Interior Construction
Trucks - Light
6 LDT2-d
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.64 24.5
24.5 60.0
220
0.04 0.33
0.23 0.01
0.02 0.02
0.15 0.002
935.5
0.00 0.04
0.03 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.02 0.00
102.91
Interior Construction
Autos
6 LDA-g
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.62 10.5
10.5 60.0
220
0.02 1.11
0.09 0.00
.0.00
0.00 0.01
0.004
389.5
0.00 0.12
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
42.85 Maximum by Within Santa Barbara County:
0.04 1.11
0.23 0.01
0.02 0.02
0.15 0.004
935.5
0.004
0.12 0.03
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.02 0.0004
102.91
Total Within Santa Barbara County:
0.01 0.32
0.07 0.003
0.005
0.005
0.03 0.001
290.75
Activity Maximum Within Santa Barbara County:
0.04 1.11
1.99 0.02
0.03 0.03
0.35 0.004
2195.91
0.004
0.12 0.03
0.001
0.002
0.00 0.02
0.00 102.91
Project Total Within Santa Barbara County:
0.01 0.32
0.13 0.003
0.01 0.01
0.04 0.001
351.3
Notes:
1. Length of trips are assumed to be round trip distances within Santa Barbara County.
2. CaIEEMod Santa Barbara County commute distance 30 miles OW
3. Concrete Source 30 miles OW
4. Import source 30 miles OW
5, Export 30 miles OW
6. Equipment/Supplies 30 miles OW
Project Number: 2202-2051
dre
Holiday Inn Express
Table 2 - Construction Onsite Exhaust Emission Calculations August 16, 2023 Equipment
Activity
Code
BHp
Load
Factor
Hours per
Day*
Number
Peak
Day
Total
Days
Emission Factors
g/bhp-hr)**
Emissions (lb/day)
Total Emission (tons)
Gallons
ROG
CO
NOx.
SOx
PM,o
PM2.,
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NO,
SOx
PKo
PM2.5
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NO,
SOx
PM.,,,
PM2.5
N2O
CH4
CO2
Fuel Use
Grading
Architectural Coating
1 --
--
0 0
1 10
250.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Asphalt Fugitive
1 —
—
0 0
1 10
2.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Backhoe
1 120
0.37 6
1 1
10 0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
511.3
0.04 2.17
0.15 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.09
300.32
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.50 136.13
Compactor
1 160
0.38 3
1 1
10 0.120
3.700
2320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.152
502.6
0.05 1.49
0.93 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.06
202.12
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.01 93.21
Dozer -1
1 100
0.43 8
1 1
10 0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.153
506.0
0.05 2.81
0.20 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.12
383.77
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.92 175.78
Dozer -2
1 250
0.43 8
1 1
10 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
510.3
0.11 4.17
0.49 0.01
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.29
967.58
0.00 0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.84 439.46
Excavator -1
1 270
0.38 8
1 1
10 0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.004
0.148
491.9
0.22 4.70
4.20 0.01
0.16 0.16
0.01 0.27
890.14
0.00 0.02
0.02 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.45 419.43
Excavator -2
1 10
0.38 6
1 1
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.119
568.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
28.57 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.14
11.65 Loader
1 150
0.36 6
1 1
10 0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.153
507.2
0.09 2.64
1.66 0.00
0.08 0.08
0.00 0.11
362.26
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.81 165.56
Mini Excavator
1 25
0.38 0
0 1
10 0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.152
504.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Paver
1 225
0.42 0
0 1
10 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.004
0.151
501.7
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Skipp Loader
1 10
0.37 6
1 1
10 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.153
508.4
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
24.88 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.12 11.34
Water Truck -1
1 200
0.38 8
1 1
10 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.156
494.1
0.08 2.95
0.35 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.21
662.29
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.31 310.69
Sub Total
0.63 20.93
7.98 0.04
0.32 0.32
0.03 1.16
3,821.92
0.0031
0.1047
0.0399
0.0002
0.0016
0.0016
0.0002
0.0058
19.1096
1,763.3
Electrical and Gas Utilities
Architectural Coating
2 --
--
0 0
1 110
250.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Asphalt Fugitive
2 —
—
0 0
1 110
2.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Backhoe
2 120
0.37 6
1 1
110
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
511.3
0.04 2.17
0.15 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.09
300.32
0.00 0.12
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.52 1,497.43
Compactor
2 160
0.38 0
0 1
110
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.152
502.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -1
2 100
0.43 0
0 1
110
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.153
506.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -2
2 250
0.43 0
0 1
110
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
510.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -1
2 270
0.38 6
1 1
110
0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.004
0.148
491.9
0.16 3.53
3.15 0.01
0.12 0.12
0.01 0.20
667.61
0.01 0.19
0.17 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.01
36.72 3,460.29
Excavator -2
2 10
0.38 2
1 1
110
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.119
568.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
9.52 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.52 42.72
Loader
2 150
0.36 4
1 1
110
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.153
507.2
0.06 1.76
1.10 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.07
241.50
0.00 0.10
0.06 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.28 1,214.14
Mini Excavator
2 25
0.38 6
1 1
110
0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.152
504.3
0.02 0.52
0.35 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.02
63.37 0.00
0.03 0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 3.49
320.40
Paver
2 225
0.42 0
0 1
110
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.004
0.151
501.7
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Skipp Loader
2 10
0.37 4
1 1
110
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.153
508.4
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.59 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.91 83.19
Water Truck -1
2 200
0.38 8
1 1
110
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.156
494.1
0.08 2.95
0.35 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.21
662.29
0.00 0.16
0.02 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
36.43 3,417.57
Sub Total
0.35 10.93
5.10 0.02
0.19 0.19
0.02 0.60
1,961.20
0.02 0.60
0.28 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.03
107.87
10,035.73
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
_
Architectural Coating
3 --
--
0 0
1 92
250.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Asphalt Fugitive
3 —
--
0.37 1
1 3
2.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.96 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Backhoe
3 120
0.37 6
1 1
92 0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
511.3
0.04 2.17
0.15 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.09
300.32
0.00 0.10
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.81 1,252.40
Compactor
3 160
0.38 6
1 1
92 0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.152
502.6
0.10 2.98
1.87 0.00
0.09 0.09
0.00 0.12
404.23
0.00 0.14
0.09 0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
18.59 1,715.00
Dozer -1
3 100
0.43 0
0 1
92 0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.153
506.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -2
3 250
0.43 0
0 1
92 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
510.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -1
3 270
0.38 4
1 1
92 0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.004
0.148
491.9
0.11 2.35
2.10 0.00
0.08 0.08
0.00 0.13
445.07
0.00 0.11
0.10 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
20.47 1,929.37
Excavator -2
3 10
0.38 4
1 1
92 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.119
568.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
19.04 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.88
71.46 Loader
3 150
0.36 4
1 1
92 0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.153
507.2
0.06 176
1.10 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.07
241.50
0.00 0.08
0.05 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.11 1,015.46
Mini Excavator
3 25
0.38 6
1 1
92 0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.152
504.3
0.02 0.52
0.35 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.02
63.37 0.00
0.02 0.02
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
2.92 267.97
Paver
3 225
0.42 6
1 1
3 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.004
0.151
501.7
0.08 2.75
0.33 0.01
0.01 0.01
1.26 0.19
627.08
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.94 86.92
Skipp Loader
3 10
0.37 4
1 1
92 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.153
508.4
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.59 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.76 69.58
Water Truck -1
3 200
0.38 8
1 1
92 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.156
494.1
0.08 2.95
0.35 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.21
662.29
0.00 0.14
0.02 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
30.47 2,858.33
Sub Total
1.43 15.48
6.24 0.03
0.25 0.25
1.27 0.85
2,779.50
0.02 0.59
0.27 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.03
99.95 9,266.48
Foundation
Architectural Coating
4 --
--
0 0
1 44
250.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Asphalt Fugitive
4 —
—
0 0
1 44
2.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Backhoe
4 120
0.37 6
1 1
44 0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
511.3
0.04 2.17
0.15 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.09
300.32
0.00 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
6.61 598.97
Compactor
4 160
0.38 0
0 1
44 0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.152
502.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -1
4 100
0.43 0
0 1
44 0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.153
506.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -2
4 250
0.43 0
0 1
44 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
510.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -1
4 270
0.38 0
0 1
44 0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.004
0.148
491.9
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -2
4 10
0.38 0
0 1
44 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.119
568.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Loader
4 150
0.36 4
1 1
44 0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.153
507.2
0.06 176
1.10 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.07
241.50
0.00 0.04
0.02 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.31 485.65
Mini Excavator
4 25
0.38 6
1 1
44 0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.152
504.3
0.02 0.52
0.35 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.02
63.37 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.39
128.16
Paver
4 225
0.42 0
0 1
44 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.004
0.151
501.7
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Skipp Loader
4 10
0.37 4
1 1
44 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.153
508.4
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.59 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.36 33.28
Water Truck -1
4 200
0.38 8
1 1
44 0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.156
494.1
0.08 2.95
0.35 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.21
662.29
0.00 0.06
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
14.57 1,367.03
Sub Total
0.19 7.40
1.95 0.01
0.07 0.07
0.01 0.40
1,284.07
0.00 0.16
0.04 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
28.25 2,613.09
Project Number: 2202-2051
padre
Holiday Inn Express
Table 2 - Construction Onsite Exhaust Emission Calculations August 16, 2023 Equipment
Activity
Code
gHp
Load
Factor
Hours per
Day*
Number
Peak
Day
Total
Days
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)**
Emissions (lb/day)
Total Emission (tons)
Gallons
ROG
CO
NOx.
SOx
PM,o
PM,.s
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NO,
SOx
PM10
PM2.S
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NO,
SO,
PM,0
PM2.s
N2O
CH4
CO2
Fuel Use
Exterior Construction
Architectural Coating
5 --
--
203
1 1
14 250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
111.77
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.78 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Asphalt Fugitive
5 —
—
0 0
1 110
2.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Backhoe
5 120
0.37 4
1 1
110
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
511.3
0.02 1.45
0.10 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.06
200.21
0.00 0.08
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.01 998.29
Compactor
5 160
0.38 0
0 1
110
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.152
502.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -1
5 100
0.43 0
0 1
110
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.153
506.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -2
5 250
0.43 0
0 1
110
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
510.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -1
5 270
0.38 0
0 1
110
0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.004
0.148
491.9
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -2
5 10
0.38 0
0 1
110
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.119
568.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Loader
5 150
0.36 4
1 1
110
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.153
507.2
0.06 1.76
1.10 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.07
241.50
0.00 0.10
0.06 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.28 1,214.14
Mini Excavator
5 25
0.38 0
0 1
110
0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.152
504.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Paver
5 225
0.42 0
0 1
110
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.004
0.151
501.7
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Skipp Loader
5 10
0.37 4
1 1
110
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.153
508.4
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.59 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.91 83.19
Water Truck -1
5 200
0.38 2
1 1
110
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.156
494.1
0.02 0.74
0.09 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05
165.57
0.00 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
9.11 854.39
Sub Total
111.87
3.95 1.29
0.01 0.06
0.06 0.01
0.19 623.88
0.79 0.22
0.07 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
34.31 3,150.01
Interior Construction
_
Architectural Coating
6 --
—
757.05
1 1
20 250.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
417.25
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.17 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Asphalt Fugitive
6 —
—
0 0
1 220
2.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Backhoe
6 120
0.37 0
0 1
220
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
511.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Compactor
6 160
0.38 0
0 1
220
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.152
502.6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -1
6 100
0.43 0
0 1
220
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.153
506.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Dozer -2
6 250
0.43 0
0 1
220
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.154
510.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -1
6 270
0.38 0
0 1
220
0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.004
0.148
491.9
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Excavator -2
6 10
0.38 0
0 1
220
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.119
568.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Loader
6 150
0.36 4
1 1
220
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.004
0.153
507.2
0.06 1.76
1.10 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.07
241.50
0.01 0.19
0.12 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.01
26.57 2,428.27
Mini Excavator
6 25
0.38 0
0 1
220
0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.152
504.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Paver
6 225
0.42 0
0 1
220
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.004
0.151
501.7
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Skipp Loader
6 10
0.37 4
1 1
220
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.153
508.4
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.59 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.82 166.38
Water Truck -1
6 200
0.38 0
0 1
220
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.156
494.1
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Sub Total
417.31
1.76 1.10
0.00 0.05
0.05 0.00
0.08 258.09
4.18 0.19
0.12 0.00
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.01
28.39 2,594.65
Onsite Total
417.31
20.93 7.98
0.04 0.32
0.32 1.27
1.16 3,821.92
5.01 1.87
0.83 0.003
0.03 0.03
0.005
0.10 317.88
29,423.23
Notes:
1. Fuel use based on EPA 0.0511 gal/bhp-hr, AP -42 Chapt 3.3
2. Construction asphalt acreage based on estimate from grading plans.
3. The unit g/bhp-hr was converted to lb/bhp-hr using the multiplier (conversion) that 1 gram = 0.0022046 Ib.
4. The unit pound was converted to tons using the multiplier (conversion) that 1 pound = 0.0005 tons. * - The value for asphalt fugitive are in acers per day and the value for Architectural Coating is in liters per day.
Project Number: 2202-2051
padre
Holiday Inn Express
Table 3 - Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions Calculations August 16, 2023
Activity
Activity
Code
Average
Source
Peak
Source
Source Units
Number of
Days
Emission
Factor
Emission Factor,
Units
Peak Day Emissions (Ibslday)
Total Emissions (tons)
PM10
PM2,s
PM,,,
PMk,s
Grading
Grading
1 0.2130
0.2130
acres/day
10 0.429
Ibs PM,./day/acre
0.0914
0.0083
0.0005
0.0000
Electrical and Gas Utilities
2 0.0024
0.0024
acres/day
110
0.429
Ibs PM,./day/acre
0.0010
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
3 0.0174
0.0174
acres/day
92 0.429
Ibs PM,./day/acre
0.0075
0.0007
0.0003
0.0000
Foundation
4 0.0061
0.0061
acres/day
44 0.429
Ibs PM,./day/acre
0.0026
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
Exterior Construction
5 0.0000
0.0000
acres/day
110
0.429
Ibs PM,p/day/acre
0O000
0O000
0.0000
0.0000
Interior Construction
6 0.0000
0.0000
acres/day
220
0.429
Ibs PM,p/day/acre
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Max per day:
0.0914
0.0083
--
—
Total:
--
--
0.0009
0.0001
Dumping
Grading
1 171.9
171.9
tons/day
10 0.01421
Ibs/ton
2.44 0.37
0.012
0.002
Electrical and Gas Utilities
2 0.0
0.0 tons/day
110
0.01421
Ibs/ton
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.000
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
3 0.0
0.0 tons/day
92 0.01421
Ibs/ton
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.000
Foundation
4 0.0
0.0 tons/day
44 0.01421
Ibs/ton
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.000
Exterior Construction
5 0.0
0.0 tons/day
110
0.01421
Ibs/ton
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.000
Interior Construction
6 0.0
0.0 tons/day
220
0.01421
Ibs/ton
0.00 0.00
0.000
0.000
Max per day:
2.44 0.37
--
--
Total:
--
--
0.012
0.002
Unpaved Road Travel
Grading
1 0.13
0.13 vehicle-miles/day
10 1.13
Ibs/vehicle-mile
0.14 0.01
0.001
0.00007
Electrical and Gas Utilities
2 0.13
0.13 vehicle-miles/day
110
1.13 Ibs/vehicle-mile
0.14 0.01
0.008
0.00078
Landscape, Concrete and Paving
3 0.13
0.13 vehicle-miles/day
92 1.13
Ibs/vehicle-mile
0.14 0.01
0.007
0.00065
Foundation
4 0.13
0.13 vehicle-miles/day
44 1.13
Ibs/vehicle-mile
0.14 0.01
0.003
0.00031
Exterior Construction
5 0.13
0.13 vehicle-miles/day
110
1.13 Ibs/vehicle-mile
0.14 0.01
0.008
0.00078
Interior Construction
6 0.13
0.13 vehicle-miles/day
220
1.13 Ibs/vehicle-mile
0.14 0.01
0.016
0.00156
Max per day:
0.14 0.01
--
--
Total:
--
--
0.042
0.004
Fugitive Dust Emissions: Inputs for the Table
Emission factors based on following inputs
Mean number of rain days per year
Silt content of soil, fill storage pile,
Roadway inputs (paved and unpaved, as per URBEMIS)
Roads mean vehicle weight, tons
unpaved dirt road silt content, %
Truck Loading inputs
k, particle size multiplier, default=0.35 fpr pm 10
U, mean wind speed, mph range 1.3-15
M, moisture content, default=l2%
PM2.5/PM10 ratio truck loading
Site grading emissions from CaIEEMod for grading
Demolition materials, tons/yds3
Fill materials, tons/yds3
10.0 worst case
1.5 SCAQMD default value
20.61 based on project description, HHDT + LDT and vehicles weight (average of full and empty)
8.4 AP -42 construction sites
0.35 8.15
12 0.15
0.091 ratio of PM2.5/PM1 o Ca/EEMod
1.000 estimated for concrete debris
1.000 estimated for soils
Mitigation: grading/dist area watering (fraction reduction) 0.61 0.61 for watering every 3 hours (SCAQMD) Mitigation: dumping soil moisture (fraction reduction) 0.30 0.69 for minimum 12% soil moisture (SCAQMD) Mitigation: roads (fraction reduction) 0.55 0.55 for watering 3X per day (SCAQMD), 0.80 for soil binders applied monthly (AP -42) Notes:
PM2 dPM,o ratio as per AP -42 k factor for PMT. and PMz 5 Demolition dust calculations as per EPA AP -42 11.19 and 13.2.4 Truck loading dumping cut/fill based on CaIEEMod
Paved and unpaved road dust emissions based on AP -42 2006 (unpaved) Chapt 13. EPA AP -42 2006 is the same as URBEMS and CaIEEMod One month assumes 22 days of activity, as per URBEMIS
adre
Project Number: 2202-2051 Page 1 of 1
Holiday Inn Express
Table 4 - Construction Emission Factors
Onsite
August 16, 2023
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)
Equipment
Tier
Engine
Size (bhp)
LF
EYeare
ROG
CO
NOx
SOx
PM10
PM2.5
N2O
CH4
CO2
Architectural Coating
EF = g/L
--
--
0 250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0000
0.000
0.000
Asphalt Fugitive
EF = lb/acre
--
--
0 2.62
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0000
0.000
0.000
Backhoe
4 120
0.37 0
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.0042
0.154
511.3
Compactor
3 160
0.38 0
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.0042
0.152
502.6
Dozer -1
4 100
0.43 0
0.060
3.700
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.0042
0.153
506.0
Dozer -2
4 250
0.43 0
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.0042
0.154
510.3
Excavator -1
3 270
0.38 0
0.120
2.600
2.320
0.005
0.088
0.088
0.0042
0.148
491.9
Excavator -2
4 10
0.38 0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.0042
0.119
568.3
Loader
3 150
0.36 0
0.120
3.700
2.320
0.005
0.112
0.112
0.0042
0.153
507.2
Mini Excavator
4 25
0.38 0
0.120
4.100
2.750
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.0042
0.152
504.3
Paver
4 225
0.42 0
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
1.0042
0.151
501.7
Skip Loader
4 10
0.37 0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.0042
0.153
508.4
Water Truck -1
4 200
0.38 0
0.060
2.200
0.260
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.0042
0.156
494.1
Notes:
Emission Factors from CaIEEMod, Appendix D
Asphalt fugitive EF Ibs ROG/acre from CaIEEMod, Appendix B.1 Archtectual Coating EF grams ROG/liter from CaIEEMod, Appendix D HP from CaIEEMod Appendix D from OFFROAD and applicant data GH4 trom GalttMod
N2U trom State (and Federal) Mandatory Reporting Rule, I able 0 -- Not Available or Applicable
Offsite - Running
Santa Barbara Count
g/mile
Ibs/mile
Vehicle
Notes
ROG
CO
NOx
SOx
PM10
PM2_5
N2O
CH4
CO2
ROG
CO
NOx
SOx
PM10
PM2_5
N2O
CH4
CO2
T7tc-d55
55 mph
0.018
0.075
1.373
0.014
0.018
0.017
0.238
0.001
1512
0.00004
0.00016
0.00302
0.00003
0.00004
0.00004
0.00052
0.00000
3.32714
T6 Utility
55 mph
0.005
0.025
0.440
0.009
0.005
0.004
0.155
0.000
986
0.00001
0.00005
0.00097
0.00002
0.00001
0.00001
0.00034
0.00000
2.17023
LDT2-d
55 m ph
0.011
0.101
0.071
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.046
0.001
289
0.00002
0.00022
0.00016
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00010
0.00000
0.63641
LDA-c
55 mph
0.012
0.802
0.067
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.003
281
0.00003
0.00177
0.00015
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.61826
Notes:
Emission factors from EMFAC2021 (year 2022, aggregated model year) Project Number: 2202-2051
padre
Holiday Inn Express
Table 5 - Construction Schedule
1st QTR
2nd QTR
3rd QTR
4th QTR
1st QTR
2022
2022
Heavy Truck Trips Round Trips / Day
Commuter Vehicles
Jan -23
Feb -23
Mar -23
Apr -23
May -23
Jun -23
Jul -23
Aug -23
Sep -23
Oct -23
Nov -23
Dec -23
Jan -24
Feb -24
Mar -24
Phase
Activity
Code
Duration,
days
HT Avg
(T -Export)*
HT Avg
(T -Import)"
HT Avg
(T -Equipment)*
HT Peak
(T -Export)
HT Peak
(T -Import)
HT Peak
(T -Equipment)
Autos
LT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 1
Grading
1 10
0.0 10.7
1.6 0
11 2
4 8
1 2
Electrical and Gas Utilities
2 110
0.0 0.0
0.3 0
0 1
5 11
1 1
1 1
1 3
Landscaje, Concrete and Paving
3 92
0.0 0.0
1.1 0
0 2
5 11
1 1
1 1
1 4
Foundation
4 44
0.0 0.0
0.1 0
0 1
5 11
1 1
5 Exterior Construction
5 110
0.0 0.0
0.3 0
0 1
11 25
1 1
1 1
1 1
6 Interior Construction
6 220
0.0 0.0
0.0 0
0 1
11 25
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Notes:
Duration assumes 5 days per week and 22 days per month
Project Schedule is estimated
`- SUM of truck trips divided by the duration in days.
Peak Export Trucks per day
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Peak Import Trucks per day
11 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Peak Equip Trucks per day
2 1
2 1
1 1
2 2
2 1
1 1
2 0
0 Total Peak Trucks per day
13 1
2 1
1 1
2 2
2 1
1 1
2 0
0 Autos per day
8.1 9
13.5 15
25.5 21
25.5 25.5
25.5 21
10.5 10.5
15 0
0 Light Trucks per day
18.9 21
31.5 35
59.5 49
59.5 59.5
59.5 49
24.5 24.5
35 0
0 August 16, 2023
Project Number: 2202-2051 Page 1 of 1
adre
associates, inc.
Holiday Inn Express
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
TABLE 1: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Source
Peak Day Emissions (Ibs/day)
Annual Emissions (tons/yr)
NOz
ROG
PM 10
PM .
25 SO2 N2O
CO
SO
CH4 CO2 x
CO
NO
ROG
PM10
PM .
25 SO2 N2O
CO
SO
CH4 CO2 2
CO
MTCO e
Operational Phase All Vehicle Trip Emissions
7.02 1.14
0.416
0.397
28.27 0.256
3.23 0.117
26,714
1.022
0.207
0.075
0.072
5.15 0.045
0.564
0.021
4,720
4,422
Operational Phase Employee / Deliveries Vehicle Trip Emissions
1.71 0.019
0.006
0.006
0.53 0.012
0.172
0.002
1,234
0.05 0.002
0.001
0.001
0.092
0.001
0.007
0.000
69.9 65.1
Operational Phase Guest Vehicle Trip Emissions
5.31 1.12
0.410
0.391
27.74 0.244
3.05 0.115
25,479
0.969
0.205
0.075
0.071
5.06 0.045
0.557
0.021
4,650
4,357
Operational Phase Emissions Without Vehicle Emissions
1.05 1.40
0.172
0.172
41.84 0.006
0.050
0.177
1,349
0.116
0.029
0.010
0.010
0.630
0.001
0.100
1.33 102.6
151.6
Total Operational Phase Emissions
8.07 2.54
0.588
0.569
70.11 0.262
3.27 0.294
28,062
1.137
0.236
0.085
0.082
5.784
0.046
0.665
1.35 4,822
4,574
SBCAPCD Significance Thresholds for All Emissions
240
240
80 --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Threshold exceeded?
No
No
No
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
SBCAPCD Significance Thresholds Vehicle Trip Emissions
25 25
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Threshold exceeded?
No
No
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
GHG - MTCO 2 E conversions
273
28 1
--
Total CEQA Operational Phase MTCO 2 E/yr
4,574
Amortized Construction Phase Emissions
21 Total Operational Phase + Amortzed Construction Phase Emissions MTCO 2E/yr 4,594
Notes:
- Global Warming Potentials (273 for N2O, 27.9 for CH4, and 1 for CO2, Table 7.SM.6, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Sixth Assessment Report CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
MTCO2E - Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
SBCAPCD - Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen
ROG - Reactive Organic Gases
PM25- Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less
PM,o - Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less
DPM - Diesel Particulate Matter
CO - Carbon Monoxide
SO2 - Sulfur Dioxide
N2O - Nitrous Oxide
CH4 - Methane
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
Assumptions:
Operations assumed 7 days per week.
adre
Project Number: 2202-2051 Page 1 of 1
associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS &
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Holiday Inn Express
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
TABLE 2: Operations
Landscaping Equipment Sources
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)
Emissions (lb/day)
Total Emissions (tons)
Source
BHP
Load Factor
Number
Hours/
Duration
(days)
NOx
ROG
PM io
PM .
z s
CO
SO2
z
z O
CH a
CO2z
Ox
ROG
PM a
PM .
z s
CO
SO2
z
z O
CH4
CO2z
Ox
ROG
PM io
PM z s
CO
SO2
z
z O
CH4
CO,Day
Ridding Lawn Mower
25 33
1 0
26 5.430
7.641
0.370
0.370
543.131
0.021
0.004
0.429
858.879
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Trimmer
5 91
1 3
26 8.589
19.581
0.338
0.338
380.309
0.029
0.004
1.101
858.879
0.258
0.589
0.010
0.010
11.4 0.001
0.000
0.033
25.8 0.003
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.149
0.00001
0.0000
0.0004
0.3360
Leaf Blower
5 94
2 3
26 2.987
12.022
1.861
1.861
480.736
0.029
0.004
0.676
858.880
0.186
0.747
0.116
0.116
29.9 0.002
0.000
0.042
53.4 0.002
0.010
0.002
0.002
0.389
0.00002
0.0000
0.0005
0.6942
Total
0.444
1.337
0.126
0.126
41.3 0.003
0.000
0.075
79.2 0.006
0.017
0.002
0.002
0.537
0.0000
0.000
0.001
1.030
On -Road Sources
Emission Factors (g/mile)
Peak Day Emissions (lb/day)
Total Emissions (tons)
Source
Peak Round
Trips/Day
Average
Round
Trips/Day
Number of
Vehicles
Length of
Round Trip
(miles)
Duration
(days)
Na,
ROG
PMio
PM2.S
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
NOx
ROG
PIN.
PM2.s
CO
SO2
N2O
CH,
CO2
NOx
ROG
PM.
PM2.s
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
Passenger Vehicle - LDA (offsite)
1 1
217
50 365
0.0619
0.0132
0.0014
0.0013
0.8413
0.0029
0.0059
0.0032
293
1.480
0.316
0.033
0.030
20.114
0.069
0.142
0.0776
7000.0
0.270
0.058
0.006
0.006
3.671
0.013
0.026
0.014
1277.5
Light -Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite)
1 1
506
50 365
0.0687
0.0144
0.0068
0.0065
0.1367
0.0031
0.0522
0.0007
331
3.831
0.805
0.377
0.361
7.624
0.175
2.911
0.0374
18479.3
0.699
0.147
0.069
0.066
1.391
0.032
0.531
0.007
3372.5
Passenger Vehicle - LDA offsite)
1 1
8 30
365
0.0619
0.0132
0.0014
0.0013
0.8413
0.0029
0.0059
0.0032
293
0.034
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.467
0.002
0.003
0.0018
162.7
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.085
0.000
0.001
0.000
29.685
Light -Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite)
1 1
4 30
365
0.0687
0.0144
0.0068
0.0065
0.1367
0.0031
0.0522
0.0007
331
0.016
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.033
0.001
0.012
0.0002
78.9 0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.000
14.394
Med-Heavy Duty - T6 Utility (offsite;
1 1
6 30
52 0.8171
0.0159
0.0043
0.0041
0.0716
0.0107
0.1777
0.0007
1128
0.324
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.028
0.004
0.071
0.0003
447.5
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.000
11.636
Heavy Duty Trucks - T7TC (offsite)
1 1
2 30
52 10.0957
0.0149
0.0150
0.0144
0.0414
0.0390
0.6493
0.0007
4121
1.335
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.086
0.0001
545.1
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
14.174
Total
7.02 1.140
0.416
0.397
28.271
0.256
3.225
0.1173
26,713.5
1.022
0.207
0.075
0.072
5.154
0.045
0.564
0.02135
4,719.9
Land Use Sources
Electricity Use
Emission Factor
(lb/kWh)
(93/kWh/day)
Emissions
Emissions
(metric tons/kWh/yr)
Source
Units or Sq
Feet
Electricity
Use
kW/units/yr
Electricity
Lighting
Use
kW/units/yr
Electricity
Water Use
kW/yr
N2O
CH4
CO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
Hotel
56,049
2.15 2.41
3.75 0.000004
0.00003
0.5279
0.00280
0.02311
369.66
0.00051
0.00422
67.46 Pool
425
1.55 0.00
0.02 0.000004
0.00003
0.5279
0.00001
0.00006
0.958
0.00000
0.00001
0.17 Parking Lot
47,934
0.00 0.88
0.00 0.000004
0.00003
0.5279
0.00046
0.00381
61.01 0.00008
0.00070
11.13 Exterior Lighting
78,932
0.00 0.88
0.00 0.000004
0.00003
0.5279
0.00076
0.00628
100.47
0.00014
0.00115
18.33 Total
0.00403
0.03326
532
0.00074
0.00607
97.1 Natural Gas
Notes:
- Square footage and number of units provided by client - Occupancy rate of 100% used
- Round trips for LDA and LDT2 were obtained from traffic study.
Emission Factors, g/kBTU
Emissions (lb/day)
Total Emissions (tons)
Total Emissions (metric tons)
Source
kBtu/Unit
SQF
NO,
0.044
ROG
0.005
PM10
0.003
PM25
0.003
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO,
NOx
ROG
PM,o
PM25
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO,
NO,
ROG
PM10
PM2s
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
Natural Gas Commercial
40 56,049
0.037
0.000
0.001
0.001
53 Total
0.60219
0.60219
0.06624
0.06624
0.04577
0.04577
0.04577
0.04577
0.50584
0.50584
0.00361
0.00361
0.01325
0.01325
0.01385
0.01385
722.623
0.10990
0.10990
0.01209
0.01209
0.00835
0.00835
0.00835
0.00835
0.09232
0.09232
0.00066
0.00066
0.09970
0.09970
0.01097
0.01097
0.00758
0.00758
722.6
Wastewater Treatment
Emission Factor (lb/gal)
Emissions (pound/day)
Emissions (metric tons/year)
Source
Wastewater
Generated
(gal lons/yr)
N2O
CH,
CO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
Project Site
6,219,648
0.0000019
0.0000030
0.00086
0.0319
0.0504
14.7 0.00002
0.00003
0.00733
Total
0.0319
0.0504
14.7 0.00002
0.00003
0.00733
Solid Waste
Emission Factor
(tons/ton)
Emissions (pound/day)
Emissions
(metric tons/year)
Source
Solid Waste
Generated
(tons/yr/unit
CH4
CO2
CH4
CO2
CH4
CO2
Hotel Unit
33.9 0.04257
0.14307
0.0040
0.0133
1.31 4.41
Total
0.0040
0.0133
1.3 4.4
adre
Project Number: 2202-2051 Page 1 of 1
associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS &
I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Holiday Inn Express
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
TABLE 3: Operational Emission Factors and Assumptions
Onsite Construction
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)
Emission Factors (lb/bhp-hr)
Source
Tier
Operational
Horsepower
Load Factor
NO x
ROG
PM +o
PM _
z s
CO
SO2
z
z O
CH4
CO2
NO
ROG
PM +o
PM .
z s
CO
SO2
z
z O
CH4
CO2
Ridding Lawn Mower
--
25 33
5.430
7.641
0.370
0.370
543
0.021
0.0042
0.429
859
0.0120
0.0168
0.0008
0.0008
1.1974
0.00005
0.00001
0.00095
1.8935
Trimmer
--
5 91
8.589
19.581
0.338
0.338
380
0.029
0.0042
1.101
859
0.0189
0.0432
0.0007
0.0007
0.8384
0.00006
0.00001
0.00243
1.8935
Leaf Blower
--
5 94
2.987
12.022
1.861
1.861
481
0.029
0.0042
0.676
859
0.0066
0.0265
0.0041
0.0041
1.0598
0.00006
0.00001
0.00149
1.8935
Onsite
Emission Factors, g/kBTU
Emission Factors (lb/kBTU)
Source
Tier
Operational
Horsepower
Load Factor
NO x
ROG
PM +o
PM .
z s
CO
SO2
z
z O
CH4
CO2
NO
ROG
PM +o
PM ,
z s
CO
SO2
z
2 O
CH4
CO2
Natural Gas Commercial
--
--
--
0.044470
0.004892
0.003380
0.003380
0.037355
0.000267
0.000978
0.001023
53.363808
0.000092
0.000011
0.000007
0.000007
0.000039
0.000001
0.000002
0.000002
0.117647
Offsite
Emission Factors (g/mile)
Emission Factors ( b/mile)
Source
Tier
Region
NOx
ROG
PM+o
PM2.s
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
NOx
ROG
PM+o
PM2,s
CO
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
Passenger Vehicle - LDA (offsite)
--
Santa Barbara County
0.0619
0.0132
0.0014
0.0013
0.8413
0.0029
0.0059
0.0032
293
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0019
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.6455
Light -Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite)
--
Santa Barbara County
0.0687
0.0144
0.0068
0.0065
0.1367
0.0031
0.0522
0.0007
331
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0003
0.00001
0.00012
0.00000
0.7303
Med-Heavy Duty - T6 Utility (offsite)
--
Santa Barbara County
0.8171
0.0159
0.0043
0.0041
0.0716
0.0107
0.1777
0.0007
1128
0.0018
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.00002
0.00039
0.00000
2.4862
Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite)
--
Santa Barbara County
1.9814
0.0274
0.0206
0.0197
0.1320
0.0159
0.2639
0.0013
1675
0.0044
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0003
0.00003
0.00058
0.00000
3.6925
Heavy Duty Trucks - T7TC (offsite)
--
Santa Barbara County
10.0957
0.0149
0.0150
0.0144
0.0414
0.0390
0.6493
0.0007
4121
0.0223
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.00009
0.00143
0.00000
9.0859
Electricity Emission Factors
Source
Electricity Usage
Electricity Use by Land Use
Source
kWhr/Unit per SQF)
Electricity
Lighting
Electricity
Hotel
2.15 2.41
Pool
1.55 0.00
Parking Lot
0.00 0.88
Exterior Lighting
0.00 0.88
Electricity Use Region
California
Emission Factors (Ib/kWhr)
N2O
CH4
CO2
0.000004
0.00003
0.5279
Natural Gas Use by Land Use
Source
Hotel Natural Gas Use
kBtu/SQF
40 Solid Waste Disposal Rate
Source
Region
Rate (tons/yr)
Hotel per Unit
Statewide
0.365
Solid Waste Emissions Factors
Landfill Type
CH4 (tons/ton)
CO2 (tons/ton)
No Landfill Gas Collection
0.042565854
0.143068564
Water Use Rates
Water Use
Source
Units or Square
Feet
Indoor Water
Use (gal/unit or
gal/Square Feet
per yr)
Outdoor
Water Use
(gal/unit or
gal/Square
Feet per yr)
Total Indoor
Water Use
(gal)
Total
Outdoor
Water Use
(gal)
Total Water
Use (gal)
Hotel
93 25,367
41,075
2,359,131
3,819,975
6,179,106
Pool
425
59 36
25,136
15,406
40,542
Total
2,384,267
3,835,381
6,219,648
Wastewater Treatment
Emission Factor (lb/gal)
Source
N2O
CH4
CO2
Project Site
0.0000019
0.000003
0.00086
Climate Zone
4 Recycling and Composting
Recycling and Composting
Program
Percentage of
Waste Recycled or
Composted
0 Notes:
- Equipment list and engine size estimated.
- Equipment criteria pollutant emission factors and load factors were obtained from CalEEMod, Appendix D 2020. - N20 emission factors for equipment were obtained from CFR Part 98 Table C-2 and CalEEMod Appendix D- 20164. Kg/mmbtu was converted to kg/bhp-hr using a diesel energy density of 7000 btu/hp-hr. - C02 and CH4 emission factors for construction equipment were obtained from CalEEMod Appendix D 2020. - Vehicle emissions factors obtained from EMFAC-2021
- C02 , CH4 and N20 emission factors for equipment were obtained from CFR Part 98 Table C-2 and CalEEMod Appendix D 2020 - Solid waste and waste water emission factors and waste disposal rates obtained from CaIEEMod Appendix D 2016 - Water use obtained from CaIEEMod Appendix D 2020
- Waste disposal rates obtained from CalRecycle's estimated solid waste generation rates adre
Project Number: 2202-2051 Page 1 of 1
associates, inc.
ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS &
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Appendix B
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY
December 8, 2021 ATE #21075
Lotus Management Company
6030 Hellyer Avenue, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95138
III
III
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
II i 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805) 687-4418 • FAX (805) 682-8509
III
1171
Since 1978
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 Al Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805)687-4418 • FAX (805)682-8509 • [email protected] Richard L. Pool, P.E.
Scott A. Schell
December 8, 2021 21075R01
Jiten Patel
Lotus Management Company
6030 Hellyer Avenue, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95138
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY
FOR THE HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT, CITY OF SANTA MARIA Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepared the following traffic and circulation study for the Holiday Inn Express Project, located in the City of Santa Maria. The study evaluates the Existing + Project and Cumulative + Project traffic conditions in order to determine the Project's consistency with the City's transportation policies; and determines the Project's potential CEQA traffic impacts based on the City's adopted "Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT) impact criteria.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with the project.
Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell
Principal Transportation Planner
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS 1
Street Network 1
Intersection Operations 5
EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITIONS 7
Project Trip Generation 7
Project Trip Distribution 8
Existing + Project Intersection Operations 8
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 11
Cumulative Traffic Volumes 11
Cumulative Intersection Operations 11
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 14
Driveway Operations 14
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 14
VMT ANALYSIS 16
Screening Criteria 17
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 19
TABLES
Table 1 Existing Levels of Service 7
Table 2 Project Trip Generation 7
Table 3 Project Trip Distribution 8
Table 4 Existing + Project Levels of Service — AM Peak Hour 8 Table 5 Existing + Project Levels of Service — PM Peak Hour 8 Table 6 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Levels of Service — AM Peak Hour.... 11 Table 7 Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Levels of Service — PM Peak Hour .... 11
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Site Location 2
Figure 2 Project Site Plan 3
Figure 3 Existing Street Network 4
Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes 6
Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 9
Figure 6 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes 10
Figure 7 Cumulative Traffic Volumes 12
Figure 8 Cumulative+Project Traffic Volumes 13
Figure 9 Proposed Red Curb on Roemer Way 15
INTRODUCTION
The following report contains analyses of the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the Holiday Inn Express Project (the "Project"), proposed in the City of Santa Maria. The report evaluates existing and future traffic operations within the Project study area and assesses the Project's consistency with City's adopted transportation policies. An analysis of site access and circulation is also provided. The roadways and intersections analyzed in the study were determined based on input provided by City of Santa Maria staff. An evaluation of the Project's potential CEQA impacts is also provided based on the City's CEQA requirements for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) adopted under Senate Bill 743.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The currently vacant Project site is located at the north end of Roemer Court in the northern portion of the City of Santa Maria, as shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 presents the Project site plan.
The Project is proposing to construct a 93 -room hotel with various guest amenities (lifestyle lounge, business center, meeting room, breakfast bar, etc.). The hotel will operate with 12 employees daily working the following 3 shifts: morning from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM; evening from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM, and; overnight from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Access to the site would be provided via two new driveways on the Roemer Court cul-de-sac.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street Network
The Project site is served by a network of highways, arterial, and collector streets, as shown on Figure 3. The following text provides a brief discussion of the major components of the street network in the study area.
US 101, located just east of the Project site, is a freeway that serves as the major north -south link through the Santa Maria Valley and is the principal inter -city route along the Pacific Coast.
US 101 is a 6 -lane freeway within the Santa Maria area, with 4 lanes provided north and south of the City. Access to the Project site from US 101 is provided via the North Broadway interchange located just north of the site.
Broadway (State Route 135), located west of the of the Project site, is an arterial street that extends from US 101 at the north end of the City to its junction with State Route 1 south of the Orcutt community. Broadway is a 4 -lane arterial street in the study area with turn lanes provided at intersections. Access to the Project site from Broadway is provided via the Roemer Way intersection.
Preisker Lane, located north of the Project site, is a 2 -lane collector street that extends north and south of Broadway. The Broadway/Preisker Lane intersection is controlled by traffic signals.
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 1 - December 8, 2021
- _
w o
• Q
n • —
w G
n �
-• m
x
c
P7) 53,
O• _
c
(A O
c n
D
Cr
O
n
CD
O
w
Cr
'1
co O
cr)
3 0•
O =
• m
O0 as
N rD
CS,
N Blosser Rd
W D von Rd
U
C
L
ti
I
San Luis Oblsp0
Santa Barbara
ECT SITE
CD
W Taylor St Ca
W Creston St
W Donovan Rd
W Orchard St
W Alvin Ave
W El Carnino St
01)
r t".I, r
E Donovan Rd
N Miller St
E MIII
E E\
se
a
mar
q(),
Q
E Alvin Ave G,l+
Camino St
E Fester St °A......1* -6
f cto
_
s
O
if 0,
NOT TO SCALE
ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
PROJECT SITE LOCATION
FIGURE OD
GM- ATE#21075
- _
o
• Q
n
n �
m
• x
c
P 53,
• 4
r)
O.
c n
D
Cn
O
n
0 O
w
Cr
6j
m o
cD
3 0'
0co
m
o
as
N
CD
Cr
/
68 FIRE HY0RA��
67 /
PROJECT SITE PLAN
10-88 3
24 7 O 9 =36-0
(10) SPACES AL 9'-0" = 90'-0"
66 65] 6
63 62
10) SPACES AT 9'-(1" = 90'-0"
i
tOB 107 t06 105 10 103 102 101 10� 99 96
73 a74 75 76 77 76 79 50 811 62 6 55 86 87 8$ 69 90
.62
(10) SPACES AT 9•-0" = 90'-0" p (10) SPACES AT 9'-0" =
7 0 (10) SPACES AT 9'-0" = 99'-9
53 52
0 7 96 95 94 93
9'-5 3/4"
(10) SPACES AT 9'-0" = 90'-0" 7• (4) ® 9
36 43 42 al 40
39 38
N
NOT TO SCALE
ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
ICJ E NGINEERS
FIGURE 2 1
GM- ATE#21075
1 a
U
Preisker Lane
Railroad Avenue
IIf= ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
111= E NGINEERS
J
-►
N
l
IF
Roemer Way
ff
Grant Street
Donovan Road
3 J �
Taylor Street
3 4-
Grant Street
® - Signalized Intersection
- Stopped Approach
1 - Lane Geometry
EXISTING STREET NETWORK
N
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE C3...)
GM- ATE#21075
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
4 Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
Roemer Way, located south of the Project site, is an east -west 2 -lane road that extends westerly from Broadway to its terminus at Preisker Lane. Roemer Way provides access to the Project site via its connection to Roemer Court. Roemer Way is controlled by stop signs at Broadway.
Roemer Court, located along the western frontage of the Project site, is a north -south 2 -lane local road that extends north Roemer Way to its terminus at the Project site. Roemer Court would provide access to the Project via two new driveways on the west side of the terminus cul-de-sac. Roemer Court is controlled by stop signs at Roemer Way.
Taylor Street, located south of the Project site, is an east -west 2 -lane road that extends westerly from Broadway to its terminus at Blosser Road. Taylor Street is controlled by traffic signals at B roadway.
Grant Street, located south of the Project site, is an east -west 2 -lane road that extends westerly from Lynne Drive to its terminus at Railroad Avenue. The Broadway/Grant Street intersection is controlled by traffic signals
Intersection Operations
Because traffic flow on urban arterials is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow analyses focus on the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods. "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used to rate intersection operations, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation (more complete definitions are contained in the Technical Appendix for reference). The City of Santa Maria considers LOS D as the performance standard for intersections (maintain LOS D or better).
Existing traffic volumes were obtained from traffic count data collected in November of 2021 (see Technical Appendix for count data). Counts were conducted during the AM peak commuter period (7:00-9:00 AM) and PM peak commuter period (4:00-6:00 PM). The peak 1 - hour volumes were then identified for the analysis. Figure 4 presents the existing peak hour traffic volumes for the study -area intersections.
Levels of service for the signalized intersections were calculated using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology and levels of service for the STOP -Sign controlled intersections were calculated using the operations method outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, which are methods adopted by the City. Table 1 lists the existing traffic control and levels of service for the study -area intersections identified for the analysis.
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 5 - December 8, 2021
64(50) J
847(318)
369(90)
L (51)73
- (2)14
r (28)51
238(347)
-4
4— (26)20
�— (633)609
f- (50)179
9(4)
--
-
119(78)
Railroad Avenue
40(52) -!
1010(367) —.-
N
4- (41)74
r (33)49
, o
-. l
V O
W
Grant Street
Donovan Road
72(20) J
741(318) --
267(71)
m
L (23)59
(12)51
r (11)29
210(254)
f
r
32(13)
119(69) -,
(.,',3'
C N
W
VI
W
LEGEND
73(34) J
704(323)
63(17) —+
d'
4- (65)89
- (19)95
r (42)125
37(37) J
4— (36)112
— (438)602
- (19)95
54(29) ----
81(66) -t
-(XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
N
NOT TO SCALE
L71
III- ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
III E NGINEERS
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE C
GM- ATE#21075
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
6 Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
Table 1
Existing Levels of Service
Intersection
Control
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU or Delay
LOS
ICU or Delay
LOS
Broadway/Preisker Lane
Signal
0.48 LOS A
0.62 LOS B
Broadway/Roemer Way(a)
STOP -Sign
12.0 sec.
LOS B
13.4 sec.
LOS B
Broadway/Taylor Street
Signal
0.44 LOS A
0.69 LOS B
Broadway/Grant Street
Signal
0.35 LOS A
0.57 LOS A
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average weighted control delay per vehicle in seconds.
The data presented in Table 1 show that the study -area intersections currently operate in the LOS A -B range during the AM and PM peak hours, which meet the City's LOS D operating standard.
EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITIONS
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project using rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual.' The rates for Hotels (Land Use #310) were used for the analysis. Table 2 presents the trip generation estimates for the Project (worksheet showing detailed calculations included in the Technical Appendix).
Table 2
Project Trip Generation
Land Use
Size
ADT
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Rate
Trips(b
Rate
Trips
Rate
Trips
Hotel(a)
93 Rooms
7.99 743
0.46 43
0.59 55
(a) ITE Hotel rates per room (ITE #310).
(b) Hotel Employee trips represent 24 ADT (12 employees X 2 daily trips).
As shown in Table 2, the Project is forecast to generate 743 average daily trips (ADT), 43 AM peak hour trips, and 55 PM peak hour trips. The 12 daily employees generate 24 ADT, these work -based employee trips are used to evaluate the Project's VMT impacts.
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, llth Edition, 2021.
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 7 - December 8, 2021
Project Trip Distribution
The distribution pattern developed for the Project is based on existing traffic counts as well as general knowledge of the population, employment, and commercial centers in the Santa Maria area. Table 3 lists the trip distribution pattern developed for the Project. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution and assignment of Project traffic at the study -area intersections.
Table 3
Project Trip Distribution
Origin/Destination
Direction
Percentage
US Highway 101
North
South
35°%
35%
Broadway s/o Grant Street
South
25%
Local Area(a)
South
5%
Totals
100%
(a) Local areas east and west of Broadway between Preisker Lane and Grant Street.
Existing + Project Intersection Operations
Levels of service were calculated for the study -area intersections assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes shown on Figure 6. Tables 4 and 5 compare the Existing and Existing + Project level of service forecasts and identify the Project's consistency with the City's LOS D standard.
Table 4
Existing + Project Levels of Service — AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Existing
Existing + Project
Consistent?
ICU or Delay
LOS
ICU or Delay
LOS
Broadway/Preisker Lane
0.48 LOS A
0.49 LOS A
Yes
Broadway/Roemer Way(a)
12.0 sec.
LOS B
12.2 sec.
LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Taylor Street
0.44 LOS A
0.44 LOS A
Yes
Broadway/Grant Street
0.35 LOS A
0.35 LOS A
Yes
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average weighted control delay per vehicle in seconds.
Table 5
Existing + Project Levels of Service — PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Existing
Existing + Project
Consistent?
ICU or Delay
LOS
ICU or Delay
LOS
Broadway/Preisker Lane
0.62 LOS B
0.63 LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Roemer Way(a)
13.4 sec.
LOS B
13.7 sec.
LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Taylor Street
0.69 LOS B
0.69 LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Grant Street
0.57 LOS A
0.57 LOS A
Yes
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average weighted control delay per vehicle in seconds.
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
- 8 - December 8, 2021
Railroad Avenue
IIf= ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
off E NGINEERS
2 4- (13)19
N
L
r (6)8
r
c -,-
co
Grant Street
Donovan Road
3 u,
JI
1(1) -
f
V
LEGEND
4 v,
f
s
V
L(XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
- Distribution Percentage
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
N
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE C5...)
GM- ATE#21075
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
9 Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
64(50) J
867(335)
369(90)
L (51)73
— (2)14
r (28)51
238(347)
—4
4- (26)20
-- (646)628
r• (50)179
9(4)
--
-
119(78)
Railroad Avenue
2 0
L (54)93
f- (39)57
O O,
O
a
V iD
L
- V
-:--, . W
W
Grant Street
Donovan Road
3 V
N
o
(23)59
n.' A
O, CO
Co W
N w
J
L
(12)51
(11)29
211(255)
—4
L(2)11
-- (473)520
`-- (32)139
32(13)
—,
119(69)
LEGEND
4 I_ (65)89
O V
W W W
f.' w
V CO A
J L
— (19)95
(42)125
37(37) J
4- (36)112
- (444)609
- (19)95
54(29) ----
81(66) —t
-(XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
N
NOT TO SCALE
I� ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
III / E NGINEERS
EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE
GM- ATE#21075
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
10 Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the study -area intersections are forecast to operate in the LOS A- B range during the AM and PM peak hours with Existing + Project traffic, which meet the City's LOS D operating standard.
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Cumulative traffic volumes were forecast for the study -area roads and intersections assuming development of the approved and pending projects located in the City (list of cumulative projects is contained in the Technical Appendix). Trip generation estimates were developed for the cumulative projects using ITE rates or from traffic studies prepared for the cumulative projects (cumulative trip generation calculations are contained in the Technical Appendix).
Traffic generated by the cumulative projects was then added to the Existing volumes to produce the Cumulative traffic forecasts. Figure 7 shows the Cumulative traffic volumes and Figure 8 shows the Cumulative + Project volumes.
Cumulative Intersection Operations
Levels of service were calculated for the study -area intersections assuming the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project traffic volumes presented on Figures 7 and 8. Tables 6 and 7 compare the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project levels of service forecasts and identify the Project's consistency with the City's LOS D standard.
Table 6
Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Levels of Service — AM Peak Hour Intersection
Cumulative
Cumulative + Project
Consistent?
ICU or Delay
LOS
ICU or Delay
LOS
Broadway/Preisker Lane
0.49 LOS A
0.50 LOS A
Yes
Broadway/Roemer Way(a)
12.3 sec.
LOS B
12.5 sec.
LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Taylor Street
0.45 LOS A
0.45 LOS A
Yes
Broadway/Grant Street
0.36 LOS A
0.36 LOS A
Yes
(b) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average weighted control delay per vehicle in seconds.
Table 7
Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Levels of Service — PM Peak Hour Intersection
Cumulative
Cumulative + Project
Consistent?
ICU or Delay
LOS
ICU or Delay
LOS
Broadway/Preisker Lane
0.65 LOS B
0.66 LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Roemer Way(a)
13.7 sec.
LOS B
13.9 sec.
LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Taylor Street
0.70 LOS B
0.70 LOS B
Yes
Broadway/Grant Street
0.57 LOS A
0.58 LOS A
Yes
(b) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average weighted control delay per vehicle in seconds.
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
64(50) J
848(319)
408(141)
L (51)73
— (2)14
r (28)51
273(372)
—4
4- (26)20
�- (634)610
t- (80)204
9(4)
--
—,
141(95)
Railroad Avenue
2 0
w
W4,.
� 0G
In N
L(41)74
IL
r (33)49
4- (70)50
(702)744
Grant Street
Donovan Road
72(20) J
761(334) -•--
270(73)
m
L (23)59
(12)51
r (11)29
213(258)
I f r
u+ .p .!_s2
n+
A v
O w
cr
32(13) --
119(70)
LEGEND
75(35) J
719(336)
66(20) —+
d'
4— (68)92
— (19)95
r (42)126
40(41) J
4— (36)113
— (458)620
- (19)96
54(29) --
82(66) -t
-(XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
N
NOT TO SCALE
L71
III ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
offE NGINEERS
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE C
GM- ATE#21075
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
12 Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
64(50) J
868(336)
408(141)
L (51)73
- (2)14
r (28)51
273(372)
-4
4— (26)20
(647)629
t— (80)204
9(4)
--
-,
141(95)
Railroad Avenue
IIf= ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
111= E NGINEERS
2 L (54)93
r (39)57
h
tO
IL
4— (77)58
—(702)744
Grant Street
Donovan Road
72(20) J
768(339) --
271(74)
m
L (23)59
(12)51
r (11)29
214(259)
-4
L(2)11
-- (500)543
`-- (32)140
32(13)
--
-,
119(70)
LEGEND
75(35) J
726(341)
66(20) —+
d'
4- (68)92
- (19)95
r (42)126
40(41) J
4— (36)113
— (464)627
- (19)96
54(29) --
82(66) -t
-(XX)XX - (AM)PM Peak Hour Volume
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
N
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE (8...)
GM- ATE#21075
Holiday Inn Express Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
13 Associated Transportation Engineers
December 8, 2021
As shown in Tables 6 and 7, the study -area intersections are forecast to operate in the LOS A- B range during the AM and PM peak hours with Cumulative and Cumulative + Project traffic, which meet the City's LOS D operating standard.
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the Project site would be provided via two new driveways on Roemer Court. The northern driveway will serve as the main entrance for vehicles accessing the main entrance of the hotel to check in or drop guests off; and provides access to the ADA accessible parking spaces located adjacent to the entrance. The southern driveway will provide access to the main parking field located south of the hotel building. The site circulation design would adequately accommodate the traffic generated by the Project.
Driveway Operations
As noted, the two Project driveways would be located on the Roemer Court cul-de-sac. Roemer Court cul-de-sac serves two other hotel developments and carries relatively low traffic volumes.
Given the existing and future volumes at the site driveways, it is anticipated that they would operate in the LOS A range with minimal delays.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The traffic analysis found that the study -area intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in the LOS A -B. It is noted that the section of Roemer Way at the Broadway intersection is currently striped with a "Stop" legend and stop bar with no centerline striping; and on -street parking is allowed on both sides of the intersection. It is recommended that a red curb "No Parking" zone be installed along the north side of Roemer Way from Broadway to the driveway of "J's Tire Auto Center" as shown in Figure 9. The no parking zone would ensure that adequate room would be maintained for westbound vehicles to make a right -turn onto Broadway when vehicles are stopped to make a left -turn at the intersection.
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 14 - December 8, 2021
D
y
0 n
CD
O
F13
Zn
0�
co o
n
3 3•
�=
m
as
N S
NJ O CD
7 60' of Red Curb on
North Side of Roemer
Way
--NOT TO SCALE
MIE
N ,' _ . \
iiii
II ASSOCIATED
T RANSPORTATION
E NGINEERS
PROPOSED RED CURB ON ROEMER WAY
FIGURE
GM- ATE#21075
VMT ANALYSIS
Per the State's Natural Resource Agency Updated Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA adopted in 2018, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) has been designated as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. "Vehicle Miles Traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non -motorized travel.
For land use projects, vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. The City of Santa Maria recently published the new "SB 743 Implementation — Draft VMT Analysis Procedures report"2, in compliance with Senate Bill 743, which includes a requirement to analyze VMT as the transportation impact metric for CEQA rather than the traditional Level of Service (LOS) metric used previously
Hotel developments are unique in that the majority of trips are generated by hotel guests from outside the community coming to visit the area for work and leisure purposes. These work and leisure trips would occur without the development of the hotel since the destination (Santa Maria) is the trip attractor not the hotel. The hotel is in effect capturing those work and leisure trips by providing lodging for travelers. This type of land use is not specifically identified in the State or Caltrans guidelines which address per capita home base (residential) and employee work base (office) trips. Therefore, the VMT analysis addresses the hotel work -based employee trips.
CEQA Guidelines. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Transportation that includes recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. 3 The Technical Advisory provides screening tools to determine when a project may have a significant VMT impacts, as follows:
s
F CALIO*IP
"Many agencies use "screening thresholds" to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less -than -significant impact without conducting a detailed study. (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(c)(3)(C), 15128, and Appendix G.) As explained below, this technical advisory suggests that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing."
2 3
SB 743 Implementation — Draft VMT Analysis Procedures, City of Santa Maria, July 2020.
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Im3acts in CEQA, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 16 - December 8, 2021
Screening Criteria
Consistent with the recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, Section 4.3.1 of the City of Santa Maria's Environmental Procedures and Guidelines manual establishes screening criteria for certain projects that are exempt from performing a detailed VMT analysis and may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Section 4.3.1-A states that:
"The following discretionary development projects are not subject to VMT analysis:
3. Small discretionary projects that would generate or attract fewer than 110 daily trips (per CEQA)."
VMT Assessment
As reviewed in Table 2 and discussed above, the Project's employees would generate 24 ADT.
The Project would therefore have a less -than significant VMT impact based on the Santa Maria screening criteria.
■■■
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 17 - December 8, 2021
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell, Principal Transportation Planner
Glenn Manaois, Transportation Engineer
Persons Contacted
Mark Mueller,PE, City of Santa Maria
Jiten Patel, Lotus Management Company
References
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition, 2016.
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition, 2021.
SB 743 Implementation — Draft VMT Analysis Procedures, City of Santa Maria, July 2020.
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 18 - December 8, 2021
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
CONTENTS:
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
CITY OF SANTA MARIA APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS LIST
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4
- Broadway/Preisker Lane
- Broadway/Roemer Way
- Broadway/Taylor Street
- B roadway/G rant Street
Holiday Inn Express Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study
- 19 - December 8, 2021
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions
LOS
Delaya
V/C Ratio
Definition
A
80.0 > 1.00
Considered unacceptable for most drivers, this level occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups, resulting in many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to high delay levels.
a Average control delay per vehicle in seconds.
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions
The HCM' uses control delay to determine the level of service at unsignalized intersections. Control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced at the control device and the travel time that would occur in the absence of the traffic control device. Control delay includes deceleration from free flow speed, queue move -up time, stopped delay and acceleration back to free flow speed.
LOS
Control Delay
Seconds per Vehicle
A
50.0 Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Board, 2000 et' \
Associated Transportation Engineers
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara (805) 687-4418
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
N Broadway & Preisker Ln
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: lr7E7077 ❑❑
City: Santa Mary
PEAK HOURS
Preisker Ln
MHO ❑M I p p l l 11 l ❑M
❑O❑❑
❑❑OE PM ❑❑❑MC PM
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM
N Broadway
SOUTHBOUND
AM ❑❑
PM ❑❑❑
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑E
❑❑❑
mu J 0
❑ ♦ 0
❑❑
AM NOON PM
Totals (AM)
co
cc m 0 0 L
3471 + t51
4. D 2
78'1 f �r 28
7 {J1 O N
o w orn
w
Totals (NOON)
0 L
DLO
4-0
r0
r►
O
Totals (PM)
C N
l
M co
.7r .7]- L
2381 t 73
9 -► ♦ 14
1193 ♦ �r 51
— Ol N
�I O O
l0 up
7 ❑❑❑
❑❑
0 0 0 0
❑❑ AM
❑❑❑ PM
CONTROL
Signalized
TEV
PHF
1677
AM
0.92 0
NOON
2592
PM
0.98 PM ❑❑❑❑
AM ❑❑❑
NORTHBOUND
0 0
4 -
or
a C
Day: T esda❑
Date: mum
M _ M
OOO
PM ❑E❑ PM
PM NOON AM
❑❑
0 0 0 0
fl�1 ♦ r
❑❑
❑❑❑
❑❑ PM
ELI AM
N Broadway
PM 0
NOON 0
AM 0
AM 0
NOON O
PM 0
Pedestrians Crosswalks)
z
0 z
z
0 z
0 0
An
2°
°2 O
g 9� O o �
0 PM
0 NOON
0 AM
0 AM
f 0 NOON
0 PM
O O O IF
o O
a z - s o
o,' O
1, „
Q
C�
PM NOON AM
aNnO81S3M
Totals (AM)
S0OIN3d 1NfO3
CO
aoi m OU)
347. ♦ ~t 51
4♦ 2
78"; * � r 28
7InwN
o w o
w
Totals (NOON)
O 0 0
01«+ ♦ t
0♦ 0
4'0
♦ r
7 o o
Totals (PM)
O1 N
k
M Oo l0
- .7r L
2381 t 73
9♦ X14
1193 ♦ r 51
I-� Ol N
�I 0 0
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
N Broadway & Roemer Way
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: hh 1100000E0❑❑
City: Santa Mane
PEAK HOURS
❑❑E❑ EM -❑❑E❑ !M
DOD El
❑❑EE❑ PM EMT PM
AM NOON PM
AM NOON PM
l0 N
m m to
1J t 41
1- 4-0
2 i- ti ♦ r►r 33
N O
0 Totals (NOON)
I o 0 0 L
OJT + t 0
0♦ .0
0, r o
- in r
0 0 0
Totals (PM)
0 co O O�
5J t74
0-► ♦0
16-4 ♦
Co 8�r 49
N V r
N O
N Broadway
SOUTHBOUND
AM
NOON
PM
Totals (AM)
Totals (AM)
❑❑❑
❑❑
❑❑❑ AM
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NOON
I❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ PM
CONTROL
1 -Way Stop(WB)
1242
AM
0.91 PM ❑❑❑❑
NOON ❑
AM ❑❑❑
PM
0.95 NORTHBOUND
❑❑❑
❑❑ PM
❑ NOON
❑❑ AM
N Broadway
PM 0
NOON 0
AM 0
AM 0
NOON 0
PM 0
Pedestrians Crosswalks)
z
0 zz a
z
0 2 oo
¢ z
An
20 °2 O
9� O oL
0 PM
0 NOON
0 AM
0 to
0 AM
NOON
PM
Day: T esdaEl
Date: TiE❑h
M M
O
PM PM
PM NOON AM
PM NOON AM
SOOT 3d 1NfOO
N
l0 N
m m Ln
_I 14
♦ ~t 41
1♦ 4-0
2'4 h 7
♦ r►r 33
� rn �
I o
N
Totals (NOON)
0 0 0
0 J«+ ♦ ~t
0♦ 0
Oiti ♦ r 0
000r►p
Totals (PM)
O
W 0 00
5 J t 74
0♦ O �0
163 ♦ r49
N v Ui
o
Co
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
N Broadway & W Taylor St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: ❑❑0E❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
City: Santa Mary
PEAK HOURS
0 R
❑❑= ❑M ❑❑❑I❑ uM
-O❑❑
❑-L li lI PM D TIL1 PM
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM
N Broadway
SOUTHBOUND
AM ❑❑
NOON
LEE
❑❑❑ AM
PM ❑❑❑
❑ ❑L =
❑ 0
❑❑❑
❑ ❑❑ J 0
❑❑
u❑
♦ o
❑ ❑❑ 0
AM NOON PM
Totals (AM)
00 -1
t\
2541
13 69 Z
w
N
t
cn
CLN
t 23
f 12
r 11
N
Totals (NOON)
Io 0
014.0
0♦ ♦ 0
7.7,1 �r 0
O p
Totals (PM)
Il0 N
N N N
2101 t 59
32 119
.
w
0 w
♦51
r 29
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
❑❑❑
OD
♦ 4 to
0 0 0 0
NOON
❑❑❑ PM
CONTROL
Signalized
1292
AM
0.90 0
NOON
2243
PM
0.98 PM ❑❑❑
NOON
AM
0 0 0 0
❑❑❑
EEL
0 t
0 �
o j
c
Day: Ti_esdal_I
Date: I I I r II ❑I 1I
❑1L ❑M DD ED M
❑O❑❑
❑ PM ❑❑❑❑ PM
PM NOON AM
❑❑
❑❑
❑
EL PM
❑❑❑
EL
❑❑❑
NOON
AM
NORTHBOUND
N Broadway
e o+
O 4o
O P�
y O
0♦
0 0
0t
0 O
0 44
O +00
oy
Pedestrians Crosswalks)
O • 2 2 0
z a a z
❑❑
PM NOON AM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
1197
aNfO91S3M
S4OI2I3d 1NIlO3
0 cn
Totals (AM)
254J
13♦
693
w
N
W
ci
M
4 4
cn
CLN
t23
4-12
�r 11
N
Totals (NOON)
01 0♦
o
0 0L
to
♦0
r0
O
Totals (PM)
IlD a NI
N N N
IJ ♦ L►
210.#4.1
101 t 59
32.# ♦51
�r 29
N
�9
w
tr
N
w
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
N Broadway & W Grant St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: fl❑LE❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
City: Santa Mary
PEAK HOURS
W Grant St
❑❑L❑ ❑M ❑❑❑L❑ uM
❑O❑❑
❑❑L❑ PM ❑❑❑L❑ PM
EASTBOUND
AM NOON PM
❑❑
N Broadway
SOUTHBOUND
AM ❑❑
NOON
❑❑❑ AM
PM ❑❑
❑❑❑
m
0 0 0 0
❑❑L
❑ 0
HE
❑❑
J o
❑❑ 0
❑❑
❑❑ 0
AM NOON PM
Totals (AM)
m
cI mNj m
371 t 65
29♦ f 19
66Z� f r 42
N CO w
w CT)
CO
Totals (NOON)
I o 0 0
4.,
0• ♦ 4t
0 m ♦ 0
oz«, ♦ r o
7 o 0 0
Totals (PM)
m O m I
374 ♦ t 89
54♦ ♦ 95
813 r 125
N
rn
0 NJ
NOON
❑❑❑ PM
CONTROL
Signalized
1125
AM
0.96 0
NOON
2130
PM
0.94 PM ❑❑❑
NOON
AM
0 0 0 0
EL
EEL
o
Day: Ti_esdal_I
Date: I I I El II HI II
❑L❑ ❑M ❑❑.-L❑ M
❑O❑❑
❑ PM ❑❑❑❑ PM
PM NOON AM
0 ❑❑
o r ❑❑❑
0 ❑❑
❑
❑❑❑
❑❑❑ PM
EEL
❑❑
❑❑❑
NOON
❑❑ AM
NORTHBOUND
N Broadway
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
Pedestrians Crosswalks)
O 2 0
z ¢ ¢ z o.
0 0
O O
0 z Q
o O
♦
i7 O
I°
O l
♦ 0
0 0
♦ 0
0 PM NOON AM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
0 '` O
z a P� O
oo O
»
aNfO91S3M
S4OI2I3d 1NIlO3
cn
Totals (AM)
-I ri m m e L
� m
37. + ~t 65
29 m 19
663 ♦ �r 42
N w p
w rn
00 Totals (NOON)
0 0 L
to
♦0
r0
O
Totals (PM)
momll0 N r\
37. ♦ t89
rn
0 NJ
X95
r 125
N
f»
N
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Associated Transportation Engineers #21075
Trip Generation Worksheet
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
Use
Size
Internal -Trip
Factor
ADT
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
Rate Trips
Rate
Trips
In % Trips
Out ')/0
Trips
Rate
Trips
In % Trips
Out °./0
Trips
PROPOSED
Hotel
Totals
W Rooms ❑EE ❑IIID ❑❑❑ ❑UEL ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑CM ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ 743
43 24
19 55
28 27
C ❑TrE ❑eneratbn ❑ased on d❑ Code ❑❑❑❑ LloteIrn ra❑e Rate❑
10/29/21, 11:06 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=310&ivlabel=UNITS310&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=93&edition=639&IocationCode=G ...
Hotel
(310)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms
On a: Weekday
Setting/Location:
Number of Studies:
Avg. Num. of Rooms:
Directional Distribution:
General Urban/Suburban
7 148
50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Room
Average Rate
Range of Rates
Standard Deviation
7.99 5.31 - 9.53
1.92 Data Plot and Equation
T = Trip Ends
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
743
585
X
X
X
X
3 00 50 100 150 200
X Study Site
X = Number of Rooms
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 10.84(X) - 423.51
Fitted Curve
X
250
Average Rate
R2= 0.85
300
Trip Gen Manual, llth Edition
• Institute of Transportation Engineers
https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=310&ivlabel=UNITS310&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=93&edition=639&IocationCode=General Urban/Suburba... 1/1
10/29/21, 11:06 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=310&ivlabel=UNITS310&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=93&edition=639&IocationCode=Ge ...
Hotel
(310)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 28
Avg. Num. of Rooms: 182
Directional Distribution: 56% entering, 44% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Room
Average Rate
Range of Rates
Standard Deviation
0.46 0.20 - 0.84
0.14 Data Plot and Equation
300
v
c
w
o- 200
100
43 oo
39 X Study Site
X
X X
X
X
X
100 200 300 400 500
X = Number of Rooms
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.50(X) - 7.45
Fitted Curve
Average Rate
R2= 0.84
Trip Gen Manual, llth Edition
• Institute of Transportation Engineers
https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=310&ivlabel=UNITS310&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=93&edition=639&IocationCode=General Urban/Suburban... 1/1
10/29/21, 11:07 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=310&ivlabel=UNITS310&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=93&edition=639&IocationCode=Ge ...
Hotel
(310)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
On a:
Setting/Location:
Number of Studies:
Avg. Num. of Rooms:
Directional Distribution:
Rooms
Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
General Urban/Suburban
31 186
51% entering, 49% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Room
Average Rate
Range of Rates
Standard Deviation
0.59 0.26 - 1.06
0.22 Data Plot and Equation
73 t3
w
FL
400
300
200
100
oo
55 41
X Study Site
x
X
3_
100 200 300 400
X = Number of Rooms
Fitted Curve Average Rate
R2= 0.78
X
X
X
xx X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.74(X) - 27.89
500
Trip Gen Manual, llth Edition
• Institute of Transportation Engineers
https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=310&ivlabel=UNITS310&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=93&edition=639&IocationCode=General Urban/Suburban... 1/1
CITY OF SANTA MARIA APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS LIST
Associated Transportation Engineers
Pending and Approved Projects - Trip Generation Worksheet HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT - CUMULATIVE LIST (#21075)
Land -Use
Size
AM Peak
PM Peak
Rate
Trips
In % Trips Out % Trips
Rate
Trips
In % Trips Out % Trips
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
❑ PR❑CS❑❑R COMMA RCOL C❑❑T❑RCS❑
S❑
❑
❑❑
❑
❑❑
■❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑■
❑ ❑❑ ❑ ■❑
❑ ❑ORTH ❑RO❑DW❑❑ SHELL ❑❑CLDI H❑
E❑
❑ H ❑❑
S❑
CI E
❑❑
❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑
❑ H ❑
❑❑
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑
Sn
❑
❑❑
❑ ORCH❑RD STR❑❑T CORDER M❑R■❑TI
❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑
❑❑ ❑
❑p❑ ❑ ❑■❑ ❑
❑ S❑P❑RCOR SOLED S❑ST❑MSAD
❑ H ❑❑
S I
❑ ❑
❑
❑ II ❑
❑
■❑❑ ■ In ❑
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ ■
MIXED USE/OTHER
C n R P ❑ ❑ T ❑ R [S ❑ ❑ CO ❑ TREE] H ❑ CO ❑
S ❑
❑❑
❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑
❑❑
❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑
❑❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑
❑ I I ❑
(a) Trip generation rate derived from Preisker Commercial Project, ATE, November 2015. (b) Trip generation rate derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual - Medical -Dental Office Building (#720). (c) Trip generation rate derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual - Liquor Store (#899). (d) Trip generation rate derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual - Automobile Parts and Service Center (#943). (e) Trip generation rate derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual - Junior/Community College (#540).
SHERWOOD DR
DUTARD ST
W DONOVAN RD
LA BREA
W SONYA LN
CARMEN LN
VIA ROSA
W MCCOY LN
W FAIRWAY DR
Santa ty ria
Pi61ic
Airport
IZo be rt F
Grogan
Park
U)
TAMA LN
Santa
tvtaria Public
Airport
Pioneer Park
W
z
w
Oakley
Par
VISTA DEL RIC
GUNNE',
WESTERN A`*
Miles
NS ET
NES A'
Minarni
Community
Park
Y�I•a Ile r Pair.
COODW'INc
W FOSTER R'
Preisker Park
POLK ST
WTAFTSr
tELUA Lt:
_rTA LN
FLEMIN3
HARSI N LN
TOWNSEND LN
PABST LN
SILER LN
GRANT ST
t.IONROE ST
�RESTON ST
E JEWEL ST
E COX LN
E LEE DR
DANIEL 01'
4JVAL LN
VINEtANO Olt
MAJESTIC DR
WINTER I '
PRIMROSE LN
SHIRLEY LN
Fart.
PADEN ST
ENDS DR
F LOUtSA T4
SUNRISE DR
0 BRADLE!''`‘
LARCH AVE
City of Santa Maria
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS (JULY 2021)
DONOVAN RD
ALVIN ST
E JONES
VIA TROPICO
crL,.BAO DR
STOWELL RD
E BATTLES RD
E BATTLES RD
BETTERAVIA RD
PRELL
PRELL RD
MORNINGSICE DR
CAMBRIDGE WAY
Esri, HERE, Garmi (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community t
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
MIXED USE/OTHER
Residential
Q 123 Fesler Apartments
123 E Fesler St
23 unit apartments
309 Mill Apartments
309 E Mill St
23 unit apartments
Vino Bella Apartments
120 W Chapel St
32 unit apartments
• Oakley Court Apartments
600 Block S Oackley Ct
30 unit apartments
Vandenberg Senior
1314 S Broadway
52 unit senior apartment addition
Centennial Square
SW/c Miller St at Plaza Dr
164 unit affordable apartments
Barcellus Senior Apartments
502 E Barcellus Ave
80 unit senior apartments
Centennial Gardens
SW/c Battles Rd & Depot St
160 unit affordable apartments
Newlove East Apartments
575 E Newlove Dr
16 unit apartments
Workforce Dormitories
1900 Block of S A Street
Workforce housing dormitories
SerraMonte Townhomes
2065 S Blosser Rd
81 unit townhomes
Santa Maria Studios
2660 Santa Maria Way
Affordable units
Northman Residential
SM Way btw Sunrise Dr & E Dauphin St
63 single family residences
Commercial
Preisker Commercial Center
N Broadway at Preisker Ln
108 rm hotel, drive thru rest, retail
North Broadway Shell Building
1700 block of N Broadway
4,473 sq ft commercial space
Orchard Street Corner Market
1334 N Broadway
1,043 sq ft addition
Superior Sound Systems
1108 N Broadway
1,800 sq ft building
Starbucks Drive-Thru
1201 E Main St Ste 1
Coffe shop & drive-thru
Blosser Coin Laundry
122 S Blosser Rd
4,410 sq ft coin laundry facility
Westgate Marketplace
S Blosser Rd & W Battles Rd
68,000 sq ft commercial center
Joshi Commercial
116 W Enos Dr
3,200 sq ft retail
McDonald's
1710 S Broadway Ave
4,554 sq ft drive thru restaurant
Enos Auto Center North
Lots 2-7 of Enos Ranchos
Design/layout of auto center
Lot 5 Auto
Lot 5 Enos Ranchos
29,000 sq ft auto dealership
Home Motors
1004 E Battles Rd
52,000 sq ft auto dealership
Enos Auto Center South
Lots 8-11 Enos Ranchos
Design/layout of auto center
Lot 11 Auto
Lot 11 Enos Ranchos
28,000 sq ft auto dealership
Splash N Dash
Lot 8 Enos Ranchos
8,200 sq ft car wash
Smile Santa Maria Dental
1925 S Broadway
7,750 sq ft dental office
Enos Ranch West Shopping Center
NW/c E Betteravia Rd at S College Dr
80,900 sq ft shopping center
A Street Deli
W Betteravia Rd at A St
4,420 sq ft retail bldg
Santa Maria Freeway Center
1000 E Betteravia Rd
23,455 sq ft retail center
Crossroads Expansion Pads
2100-2300 S Bradley Rd
27,700 sq ft retail on 3 pads
VTC Enterprises (Phase 2)
2445 A St
6,187 sq ft vocational training bldg
U -Haul
2875 Santa Maria Way
Ministorage and Office
Industrial
• •
■
SMOOTH Bus Wash
240 E Roemer Wy
1,134 sq ft bus wash building
Bonita Packing Expansion
1850 W Stowell Rd
173,270 sq ft cooler addition
Maxco Box Facility
1550 W Stowell Rd
60,000 sq ft & outdoor storage
Central Coast Truck Center
W Stowell & Hanson Way
37,300 sq ft sales & repair facility
Seaside Warehouse
La Brea Avenue
40, 854 sq ft facility
Windset Farms Greenhouse
1650 Black Rd
4.3 mil sq ft greenhouse & 93k bldg
DMS Electric
2224 S Westgate Rd
10,000 sq ft bldg
Tava Corp
2329 Thompson Way
33,000 sq ft mult-tenant complex
2811 Center
2811 Ai rpa rk Dr
51,200 sq ft of office in 2 bldgs
Platino Development
2900 block Industrial Pkwy
48,717 sq ft in 4 bldgs on 4 lots
The Gas Company
3138 Industrial Pkwy
Natural gas fueling station
� Mixed Use/Other
Carpenter's Union Training
2210 N Preisker Ln
30,000 sq ft vocational training
Bathia Mixed Use
311 N Miller St
Blosser Southeast e Park Edge Apartments
NE/c Blosser Rd & W Battles Rd SE/c Santa Maria Way & S Miller St Amen. to Specific Plan 140 apt units & 5,435 sq ft comm. 6 + Aquistapace Tentative Map
Blosser SE (Area 5A) SP
1,533 sq ft Comm. & 6 res. units 16 lots (res, Comm, pf & os) ED Gateway Mixed Use Manriquez Commercial
101 N Broadway NW/c S Blosser Rd & La Brea Ave
33,700 sq ft 4 story mixed use bldg Gen. Plan Amen. & Zone Change D&J Sober Living Facility
819 W Church, 113 S Benwiley
mixed -use w/trans housing & off
Miller & Boone Mixed Use
501 E Boone St
33,600 sq ft mixed use building
Boone Street Market
501 E Boone St
2,280 sq ft add & 2 units
Crucified Life Church
NW/c S McClelland Street
11,700 sq ft church bldg
Betteravia Plaza
W Betteravia Rd at SMVRR
272 apts & 381,250 sq ft retail/off
Celebration I, II, III
S Miller St at E Inger Dr
56 homes/33 senior/7,000 sqft comm
First Baptist Church Master Plan
2970 Santa Maria Way
Site Master Plan
People's Self Help Housing Land Use Map/Zone Change
3170 Santa Maria Way
Gen. Plan Amen. & Zone Change
Lakeview Mixed Use
NW/c S Broadway & Skyway Dr
164 apts & 11,000 sq ft comm
Airport Business Park Specific Plan
NWC of Orcutt Expressway & Union Pkwy
Specific Plan w/ multiple land uses
City of Santa Maria
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS (JULY 2021)
'f
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Carpenter's Union Training Center
30,000 sq. ft. vocational training center
2210 N. Preisker Ln
128-002-035
Christopher Horstman, Architect, 805-544-4334 x104
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
6.2 PD/C-2
Dana Eady
File #5
PD2018-0010
GPZ2018-0002
TR2018-0001
Approved Status
10/17/2018 Building permits approved. Planning
12/4/2018 permit expiration on 10/17/2021.
10/17/2018
2 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Preisker Commercial Center
108 rm hotel, 15,000 sq. ft. drive thru, rest., retail
NW/c N. Broadway and Preisker Ln
128-002-048, -049 & -050
Jody Walker Belsick, Applicant, 702-786-1829
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
5 PD-f/C-2
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2015-0011
TR2016-0001
A2019-0004
Approved
5/18/2016
9/7/2016
2/18/2019
Status
Under construction.
3 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
SMOOTH Bus Wash
1,134 sq. ft. bus wash building
240 E. Roemer Way
128-003-046
Tom Martinez, Architect, 805-934-5737
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
1.2 PD/C-2
Dana Eady
File #s
PD2017-0023
A2021-0004
Approved
5/16/2018
Status
Planning permit expiration on
5/16/2023
4 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
North Broadway Shell Building
4,473 commercial space
1700 block of N. Broadway
117-040-038, 039, and 040
Ellen Goodwin, Architect
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
3 PD/C-2
Cody Graybehl
PD2007-014
TR5996-0001
A2015-0031
7/2/2008
9/3/2014
11/6/2015
Status
Under construction.
5 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Orchard Street Corner Market
1,043 sq ft addition to existing corner market
1334 N. Broadway
121-031-004
Rami Zakour, Applicant
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
0.45 PD/C-2
Cody Graybehl
File #s
PD2019-0005
Approved
10/2/2019
Status
Planning permit expiration on
10/2/2022.
6 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Superior Sound Systems
1,800 sq. ft. building
1108 N. Broadway
121-051-002
Paul Knutson, Engineer, 805-922-4777
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
0.5 PD/C-2
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2018-0015
Approved
5/15/2019
Status
Planning permit expiration on
5/15/2022.
7 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
123 Fesler Apartments
Construct a 23 unit, 9750 sq. ft. apartment building
123 E Fesler St
121-152-014
Jason Heyward, Consultant, 805-928-8948
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
0.2 DTSP - Bungalow
Frank Albro
File #s
DT2020-0016
District
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permits under review.
8 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
309 Mill Apartments
Construct a 23 unit, 9750 sq. ft. apartment building
309 E Mill St
121-193-011
Jason Heyward, Consultant, 805-928-8948
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential File #s
0.2 DT2020-0015
DTSP - Bungalow District
Frank Albro
Approved Status
Pending Planning permits under review.
9 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Bathia Mixed Use
1,533 sq. ft. commercial & 6 residential units
311 N. Miller St
121-193-008
Chris Thomas Pasco, Consultant, 805-703-0380
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other File #s
0.2 DT2017-0088
Downtown SP A2019-0027
Frank Albro
Approved Status
1/30/2018 Building permits submitted. Planning
7/30/2019 permit expiration on 7/30/2021
10 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Vino Bella Apartments
Construct a 32 unit, 3 -story apartment building
120 W Chapel St Bungalow
119-276-015
Ben Nikfarjam, Applicant, 310-215-4882
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential File #s
0.3 DT2020-0017
DTSP - District
Frank Albro
Approved Status
12/16/2020 Planning permit expiration on
12/16/2023.
I1
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Starbucks Drive-Thru
Coffee shop and drive-thru
1201 E Main St Ste 1
128-120-004
Joey Ly, Applicant, 714-560-8673
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial File #s
0.56 PD2021-0001
PD/HC U2021-0003
Carol Ziesenhenne
Approved Status
Pending Planning permits under review.
12 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Gateway Mixed Use
33,700 sq. ft., four-story mixed use development
101 N. Broadway
119-276-019
Ben Nikfarjam, Developer, 310-251-4882
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other File #s
0.3 DT2017-0033
Downtown SP A2019-0032
Dana Eady
Approved Status
1/16/2018 Building permits submitted. Planning
9/4/2019 permit expiration on 7/16/2020.
13 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Blosser Coin Laundry
4,410 sq. ft. coin laundry facility
122 S. Blosser Rd
123-011-023
Irina Tudorache, Applicant, 213-388-5807
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial File #s
0.4 PD2017-0018
PD/C-2
Carol Ziesenhenne
Approved Status
8/15/2018 Under construction
14 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
D&J's Sober Living Facility
Mixed -use facility w/transitional housing and offices
819 W. Church St, 113 S. Benwiley Ave
123-024-008, 007
Jeff Jeffery, Applicant, 619-301-1846
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other File #s
0.4 PD2017-0011
PD/C-2 A2018-0010
Frank Albro
Approved Status
11/1/2017 123-024-007 parcel has been built.
9/19/2018 Building permits submitted for 123-024-
008.
15 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Miller & Boone Mixed Use
Construct a 33,600 sq. ft. mixed use building
417 E Boone St
125-112-011
Rami Zakour, Applicant, 805-403-2195
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed Use/Other File #s
1.19 DT2020-0013
DTSP- Bungalow District
Cody Graybehl
Approved Status
Pending Planning permits under review.
16 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Boone Street Market
2,280 sq. ft. addition to market, and 2 new units
501 E. Boone St
125-114-015
Brian Schwartz, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
0.2 Downtown SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
GPZ2016-0004
SPZ2016-0003
DT2016-0040
A2019-0006
A2020-0012
Approved
5/2/2017
5/2/2017
8/21/2017
3/4/2019
6/8/2020
Status
Planning permit expiration on
3/20/2022.
17 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Oakley Court Apartments
30 apartment units with on -site manager's unit
600 Block S. Oakley Ct
123-140-036
Lupe & Gustavo, Applicant, 805-937-1108
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
2.1 PD/R-3
Frank Albro
File #s
GPZ2019-0001
PD2019-0002
Approved
10/1/2019
7/17/2019
Status
Planning permit expiration on
7/17/2022
18 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Bonita Packing Expansion
173,270 sq. ft. cooler addition in 4 phases
1850 W. Stowell Rd
117-820-028
John Smith, Engineer, 805-466-5660
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
45.4 PD/CM
Dana Eady
File #s
PD2012-0007
Approved
5/1/2013
Status
Phase 1 (45,935 sq. ft.) is completed.
19 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Maxco Box Facility
Construct a new 60,000 sq. ft. box facility and outdoor storage yard 1550 W Stowell Rd
117-820-015
Steve Rigor, Applicant, (503) 477-8328 x 112
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
19.8 PD/CM-AG
Cody Graybehl
File #s
PD2020-0003
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permits under review.
20 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Central Coast Truck Center
37,300 sq ft building for the sales and repair of semi -trucks W. Stowell Rd & Hanson Way
117-240-021
RRM Design, Consultant, 805-543-1794
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
8.3 M-2
Frank Albro
File #s
U2019-0010
Approved
12/18/2019
Status
Under construction.
21 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Blosser Southeast
Amendment to Blosser Southeast Specific Plan
NE/c of S. Blosser Rd and W. Battles Rd
117-240-028
Laurie Tamura, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
155.5
Blosser SE SP
Dana Eady
File #s
GPZ2016-0003
SPZ2016-0002
TR2019-0003
Approved
10/20/2020
10/20/2020
10/20/2020
Status
Planning permits aproved.
22 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Aquistapace Tentitive Map
16 lots (residential, commercial, public facility, open space) Blosser Southeast (Area 5A) Specific Plan
117-240-028
Jason Tamura , 805-934-5737
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
146.5
Blosser Southeast
Dana Eady
File #s
TR2019-0003
SP
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permit under review.
23 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Vandenberg Senior Residences
52 unit senior apartment addition
1314 S. Broadway
128-065-008
Barry Williams, Architect, 805-459-7353
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
4.9 PD/C-1
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2017-0002
A2021-0008
Approved
7/18/2018
Pending
Status
Building permit submitted. Planning
permit expiration on 7/18/2021.Time
extension under review.
24 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Seaside Packaging Warehouse
40, 854 square -foot packaging warehouse
La Brea Avenue
117-240-034
Suzanne D. Winslow, Applicant, (805) 544-9700
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
6.18 M-2
Cody Graybehl
File #s
U2021-0002
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permit under review.
25 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Manriquez Commercial Land Use Map/Zone Change Category
Revise the land use and zone designations from GI, M-2 to CC, PD/C-2 Acreage NW/c S. Blosser Rd and La Brea Ave. District
117-240-024 Planner
Manricuez Commercial Real Estate, Applicant
Mixed Use/Other
6.74 M-2
Cody Graybehl
File #s
GPZ2020-0002
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permits under review.
26 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Centennial Square Apartments
184 affordable apartments
SW/c Miller St and Plaza Dr
128-066-003
Brian Schwartz, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
6.35 PD/R-3
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2020-0009
Approved
8/4/2021
Status
Planning permit expiration on
8/4/2024.
27 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Barcellus Senior Apartments
80 unit senior apartments
502 E. Barcellus Ave
128-067-032, -033, -034
Brian Schwartz, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
2.3 CPO
Cody Graybehl
File #s
GPZ2016-0002
PD2016-0005
A2018-0005
A2019-0037
A2021-0005
Approved
12/7/2016
12/7/2016
7/18/2018
11/6/2019
6/2/2021
Status
Planning permit expiration on
6/6/2023.
R �
28 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Westgate Marketplace
68,000 sq. ft. commercial center
NW/c S. Blosser Rd and W. Battles Rd
117-240-046, -045
Craig Minus, Developer, 805-962-2121
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
7.6 PD/CC
Dana Eady
File #s
PD2007-012
A2016-0011
A2017-0029
A2018-0023
A2020-0003
Approved
7/2/2008
6/15/2016
2/7/2018
1/16/2019
5/20/2020
Status
Planning permit expiration on
12/15/2021.
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Joshi Commercial
3,200 sq. ft. of retail
116 W. Enos Dr
117-300-084
Tom Martinez, Architect, 805-934-5737
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
0.3 PD/C-1
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2016-0015
A2018-0024
A2020-0001
Approved
6/7/2017
2/6/2019
5/6/2020
Status
Planning permit expiration on
12/7/2021.
30 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Centennial Gardens
Construct 160 affordable apartment units
SW/c Battles and Depot
118-010-058
Templeton Santa Barbara, LLC, Applicant, 805-598-1825
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
8.36 PD/R-3
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2020-0006
Approved
11/18/2020
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration 11/18/2023
I
3j Location
Project McDonald'S
Description 4,554 sq ft drive thru restaurant
1710 S. Broadway Ave
APN(s) 128-075-001
Contact Robert Preece, Consultant, 909-821-6703
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
0.$
PD/C-2,R-2
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2019-0006
Approved
11/6/2019
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration 11/6/2022.
32 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Newlove East Apartments
16 apartment units
575 E. Newlove Dr
128-073-016
Tom Martinez, Architect, 805-934-5737
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
1.4 R-2
Frank Albro
File #s
U2016-0016
A2019-0044
Approved
2/21/2018
5/6/2020
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration on 5/6/2023.
33 4
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Enos Auto Center North Campus
Overall site design and layout of an auto center
Lots 2-7 of Enos Ranchos Specific Plan
128-189-002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007
Jacob Weintraub, Consultant, 805-441-0332
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
17.7 Enos Ranchos SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2018-0006
TU2019-0153
Approved
5/16/2018
6/17/2020
Status
Under construction.
33(a)
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Lot 5 Auto
A 29,000 sq. ft. auto dealership
Lot 5 & 6
128-189-005
Jacob Weintraub, Consultant, 805-441-0332
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
2 Enos Ranchos SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2017-0020
Approved
5/16/2018
Status
Under construction.
33 ( b4
Ili
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Home Motors
52,000 sq. ft. auto dealership
1004 E. Battles Rd
128-189-002
Jacob Weintraub, Consultant, 805-441-0332
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
7.2 Enos Ranchos SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2018-0004
Approved
5/16/2018
Status
Under construction.
34 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Crucified Life Church
11,700 sq. ft. building
NW/c S. McClelland St
128-114-069
Cordelia Raymond, Architect, 805-786-4391
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
0.6 PD/C-2
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2017-0017
A2019-0041
A2020-0017
Approved Status
2/21/2018 Building permits submitted. Planning
12/18/2019 permit expiration on 2/21/2023.
2/3/2021
35 ProjectI
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Enos Auto Center South Campus
Overall site design and layout of an auto center
Lots 8-11 of the Enos Ranch Specific Plan
128-189-008, 009, 010, 011
Jacob Weintraub, Consultant, 805-441-0332
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
15.2 Enos Ranchos SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2018-0007
Approved
5/16/2018
Status
Under construction.
35(a)
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Lot 11 Auto
A 28,000 sq. ft. auto dealership
Lot 11
128-189-011
Jacob Weintraub, Consultant, 805-441-0332
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
3 Enos Ranchos SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2017-0021
Approved
7/18/2018
Status
Under construction.
35(
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Splash N Dash
8,200 sq ft carwash
Lot 8
128-189-008
Jacob Weintraub, Consultant, 805-441-0332
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
1.6 Enos Ranchos SP
Dana Eady
File #s
PD2018-0005
Approved
9/4/2019
Status
Grading permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration on 9/4/2022.
36 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Windset Farms Greenhouses 7-9
4.3 mil sq. ft. greenhouse and 93,000 sq. ft. bldg.
1650 Black Rd
117-310-004 thru -010
Brian Schwartz, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
49 Area 9 SP
Dana Eady
File#s
PD2017-0009
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permit under review.
37 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Workforce Dormitories
Workforce Housing Dormitories
1900 Block of S. A Street
128-003-019
Dan Blough, Applicant, 805-4937-1108
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
127.96
Area 9 Specific Plan
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2019-0011
SPZ2020-0001
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permit under review.
38 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
SerraMonte Townhomes
81 townhome units
2065 S. Blosser Rd
117-770-016, -017, -018, -047
Laurie Tamura, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
6.5 PD/R-3
Dana Eady
File #s
GPZ2018-0003
PD2018-0012
TR2018-0002
Approved
6/4/2019
3/20/2019
3/20/2019
Status
Planning permit expiration on
3/20/2022.
39 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Betteravia Plaza
Up to 272 apts. and 381,250 sq. ft. of retail/office
NW/c of W. Betteravia Rd & SMVRR tracks
117-330-082
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
55.2 Multiple
Dana Eady
File #s
GPZ2015-0002
DA2015-0001
TR2018-0002
PD2015-0006
Approved Status
2/2/2016 Tentative map expiration on
2/2/2016 8/3/2021. Master PD approved.
11/21/2018 Grading permit approved.
2/3/2016 Final map under review.
40 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Smile Santa Maria Dental
7,750 sq. ft. dental office building
1925 S. Broadway
117-500-029
Cordelia Raymond, Architect, 805-786-4391
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
0.9 PD/C-2
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2018-0016
Approved
9/19/2018
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration 9/19/2021.
41 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Celebration I, II, III
56 single family units, 33 unit senior apt,
7,000 sq. ft. office bldg, 1 mixed use bldg
NW/c S. Miller St and E. Inger Dr
128-177 (all) and 128-178 (all)
Frances Romero, Agent, 805-469-9510
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
6.8 PD/R-2
Cody Graybehl
File #s
Tract 5893, 5921
PD2005-023
PO2006-019
PD2013-0010
Tract 5993
PD2018-0001
Approved Status
Recorded Phase III (rooftop gardens) building
12/21/2005 permits submitted and planning
permits expiration on 8/15/2021.
9/20/2006
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
8/15/2018
!Project
42 Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Enos Ranch West Shopping Center
80,900 sq. ft. shopping center in 6 buildings
NW/c E. Betteravia Rd and S. College Dr
128-078-010
Clifford Rhea, Consultant, 805-260-4154
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
7.8 Enos Ranchos SP
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2011-005
A2016-0006
A2017-0008
A2019-0013
PD2020-0004
Approved
8/1/2012
3/30/2016
3/7/2018
6/19/2019
8/19/2020
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration 8/19/2023.
43 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
A Street Deli
4,420 sq. ft. retail building
SW/c Betteravia Rd and A St
111-040-006
Gil Rodriquez, Applicant, 805-478-1674
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
0.5 PD/M-1
Dana Eady
File #s
GPZ2015-0005
PD2015-0019
A2018-0002
A2019-0025
Approved
9/20/2016
9/21/2016
3/21/2018
9/4/2019
Status
Building permits issued. Planning
permit expiration 6/28/2020.
44 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
DMS Electric
10,000 sq. ft. new construction
2224 S. Westgate Rd
111-400-050
David Shahrabani, Owner, 805-922-6033 *
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
1.26 PD/CM
Dana Eady
File #5
PD96-17
Approved
1/22/1997
Status
Phase 1 (5,000 sq. ft.) is complete, no
building permit submittal for Phase 2
(5,000 sq. ft.)
45 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Tava Corp
33,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant complex
2329 Thompson Way
111-400-018
Kevin Moore, Architect, 805-455-0574
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
3 PD/M-1
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2016-0012
Approved
8/16/2017
Status
Under construction.
46 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Santa Maria Freeway Center
23,455 sq. ft. retail on five pads
1000 E. Betteravia Rd
128-136-043, -056
Jim Lichacz, Consultant, 323-874-3370
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
4.7 Entrada Este SP
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2002-020
A2014-0012
A2016-0019
A2019-0021
Approved
6/4/2003
12/5/2015
11/23/2016
8/5/2019
Status
1,898 sq. ft. gas station and Popeye's
restaurant complete.
47 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Crossroads Expansion Pads
27,700 sq. ft. on three new pads
2100 - 2300 S. Bradley Rd
128-136-050, -053, 128-137-060
Ryan Best, Developer, 714-241-0400
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
47.8 Entrada Este SP
Cody Graybehl
File #s
PD2012-0001
Tract 5997
A2014-0008
A2018-0020
Approved
8/1/2012
Recorded
9/17/2014
12/10/2018
Status
Under construction, two of the three
pads completed.
48 ft.).
Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
VTC Enterprises (Phase 2)
6,187 sq. ft. vocational training buildings
2445 A St
111-040-043, -044
Gil Palacios, Architect, 805-928-8008
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
3.3 30091
Cody Graybehl
File #s
U2008-004 (PR)
Approved
7/2/2008
Status
Classroom building built (12,023 sq.
Building permits submitted for
phase 2.
49 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
2811 Center
51,200 sq. ft. of office in 2 buildings
2811 Airpark Dr
111-231-003
Steve Simoulis, Developer, 805-541-9004
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
7 PD/M-1
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
PD2017-0003
TR2017-0002
Approved
6/7/2017
3/21/2018
Status
One 25,600 sq. ft. building
constructed. Under construction.
50 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Platino Development
48,717 sq. ft. in 4 buildings on 4 lots
2900 block Industrial Parkway
111-291-035, -036, -038, -039
Chris Mathys, Developer, 559-438-9999 ext. 11
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
5.1 PD/M-1
Dana Eady
File #s
PD2010-006
A2015-0032
A2016-0034
A2019-0016
Approved
2/16/2011
9/2/2015
Closed
Pending
Status
Planning permit under review
51 0Location
Project
Description
APN(s)
Contact
U -Haul Ministorage and Office
Exterior improvements to the building and interior remodel to include mini -storage 2875 Santa Maria Way
109-010-008
Tom Martinez, Architect, 805-934-5737
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Commercial
13 PD/C-2
Cody Graybehl
File #s
U2019-0008
U2019-0021
PD2020-0002
Approved
6/19/2019
6/17/2020
6/17/2020
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permits expiration on 6/17/2023.
52 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Santa Maria Studios
Affordable Housing Project
2660 Santa Maria Way, Santa Maria, CA
128-090-011
AMG & Associates, LLC, 818-380-2600
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
5.5 PD/C-2
Dana Eady
Files #s
PD2020-0001
Approved
N/A
Status
Building permits submitted.
53 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Park Edge Apartments
140 apt units, clubhouse and 5,435 sq. ft. multi -tenant commercial SE/corner of Santa Maria Way & Miller Street
128-090-022, -023 & 109-010-039
Brian Schwartz, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed Use/Other
7.45 PD/C-2 & PD/R-3
Cody Graybehl
PD2020-0008
U2020-0012
SUB2021-0001
Pending
Pending
Pending
Planning permits under review.
54 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
First Baptist Church Master Plan
Site Master Plan
2970 Santa Maria Way
109-010-019
John Kemlo, Applicant, 805-937-8405
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed Use/Other
25.5 PD/R-1
Carol Ziesenhenne
File #s
U2019-0005
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permits under review.
55 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Northman Residential
63 single family residences
Santa Maria Wy btw Sunrise Dr & E Dauphin St
109-010-005, -006
Brian Schwartz, Consultant
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Residential
13.2 PD/R-1
Dana Eady
File #s
GPZ2018-0004
TR2018-0003
PD2018-0013
Approved
8/6/2019
7/16/2019
6/19/2019
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration 6/19/2022.
56 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
People's Self Help Housing Land Use Map/Zone Change
From CC, PD/C-2 to LMDR-8, PD/R-1
3170 Santa Maria Way
109-010-012
Sheryl Flores, Applicant, 805-540-2465
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed Use/Other
8.89 PD/C-2
Frank Albro
File #s
GPZ2021-0001
Approved
Pending
Status
Planning permits under review.
57 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
The Gas Company
A natural gas fueling station
3138 Industrial Parkway
111-291-020
Steven Ly, Applicant, 213-244-3175
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Industrial
1.9 PD/M-1
Dana Eady
File #s
U2017-0013
U2019-0004
A2019-0033
Approved
3/7/2018
9/23/2019
Pending
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration on 9/7/2019.
58 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Lakeview Mixed Use
164 unit apartments and 11,000 sq. ft. commercial
NW/corner of S. Broadway and Skyway Dr.
111-100-008
Laurie Tamura, Consultant, 805-934-5760
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
4 PD/R-3 + PD/C-2
Frank Albro
File #s
PD2018-0008
Approved
4/2/2019
Status
Building permits submitted. Planning
permit expiration on 4/2/2022.
59 Project
Description
Location
APN(s)
Contact
Airport Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Specific Plan with multiple land uses
NWC of Orcutt Expressway (Highway 135) and Union Valley Parkway 111-231-011
Erik P Justesen, (805, 543-1794
Category
Acreage
District
Planner
Mixed/Other
19.3 Airport Specific Plan
Frank Albro
File #s
SPZ2019-0001
GPZ2019-0002
Approved
Pending
Pending
Status
Planning permits under review.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4
- Broadway/Preisker Lane
- Broadway/Roemer Way
- Broadway/Taylor Street
- Broadway/Grant Street
#21075 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: BROADWAY
EM/ STREET: PREISKER LANE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASED
REF: 01AM
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 50 633 26 50 318 90 347 4 78
28 2 51
(B) PROJECT -ADDED 0 13 0 0 17 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE 80 634 26 50 319 141 372 4 95
28 2 51
GEOMETRICS
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L TT R L LTR
L T R
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
# OF
SCENARIO VOLUMES
SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS
LANES
CAPACITY
1 2 3 4
1 2
3 4
NBL
1 1600
50 50 80 80
0.031
0.031
0.050
0.050
NBT
2 3200
633 646 634 647
0.204
*
0.208 *
0.204 *
0.208
*
NBR (a)
0 0
20 20 20 20
-
-
-
-
SBL
1 1600
50 50 50 50
0.031
*
0.031 *
0.031 *
0.031
*
SBT
2 3200
318 335 319 336
0.099
0.105
0.100
0.105
SBR (b)
1 1600
55 55 86 86
0.034
0.034
0.054
0.054
EBL
0 0
347 347 372 372
-
-
-
-
EBT
2 3200
4 4 4 4
0.129
*
0.129 *
0.141 *
0.141
*
EBR (c)
0 0
62 62 76 76
-
-
-
-
WBL
1 1600
28 28 28 28
0.018
*
0.018 *
0.018 *
0.018
*
WBT
1 1600
2 2 2 2
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
WBR (d)
1 1600
26 26 26 26
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
LOST TIME:
0.100
*
0.100 *
0.100 *
0.100
*
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
0.482
0.486
0.494
0.498
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
A
A
A
A
NOTES:
RTOR: (a) 23%
(b) 39%
(c) 20%
(d) 49%
Printed: 12/02/21
#21075 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2021
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: BROADWAY
EAN STREET: PREISKER LANE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASED
REF: 01 PM
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 179 609 20 64 847 369 238 9 119
51 14 73
(B) PROJECT -ADDED 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE 204 610 20 64 848 408 273 9 141
51 14 73
GEOMETRICS
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L TT R L LTR
L T R
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
# OF
SCENARIO VOLUMES
SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS
LANES
CAPACITY
1 2 3 4
1 2
3 4
NBL
1 1600
179 179 204 204
0.112
*
0.112 *
0.128 *
0.128
*
NBT
2 3200
609 628 610 629
0.196
0.202
0.196
0.202
NBR (a)
0 0
17 17 17 17
-
-
-
-
SBL
1 1600
64 64 64 64
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
SBT
2 3200
847 867 848 868
0.265
*
0.271 *
0.265 *
0.271
*
SBR (b)
1 1600
214 214 237 237
0.134
0.134
0.148
0.148
EBL
0 0
238 238 273 273
-
-
-
-
EBT
2 3200
9 9 9 9
0.110
*
0.110 *
0.127 ^
0.127
*
EBR (c)
0 0
104 104 123 123
-
-
-
-
WBL
1 1600
51 51 51 51
0.032
*
0.032 *
0.032 *
0.032
*
WBT
1 1600
14 14 14 14
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
WBR (d)
1 1600
36 36 36 36
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
LOST TIME:
0.100
*
0.100 *
0.100 *
0.100
*
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
0.619
0.625
0.652
0.658
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
B
B
B
B
NOTES:
RTOR: (a) 16%
(b) 42%
(c) 13%
(d) 51%
Printed: 12/02/21
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report - �: g,.- L .,
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
AM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.91 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
EXISTING
Lanes
J 4 l A44.I..it
1 1 L
-4
1I -
Major Street North South
A-
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
33 41
671
70 0
52 367
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left
Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
36 45
57 Capacity, c (veh/h)
364
591
802
v/c Ratio
0.10 0.08
0.07 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.3 0.2
0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)
16.0 11.6
9.8 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
13.6 1 2
Approach LOS
B
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
A140 = IL. 0 ft - Lit g
HCS'A J TWSC Version 7.9.5
02AM_EX.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:47:39 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report
As
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
AM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.91 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
EXISTING + PROJECT
Lanes
1 1 L.
-a
-4
e-
1 I -
Major Street North -South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
39 54
671
77 0
69 367
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
43 59
76 Capacity, c (veh/h)
354
587
797
v/c Ratio
0.12 0.10
0.10 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.4 0.3
0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)
16.5 11.8
10.0 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
13.8 1 6
Approach LOS
B
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
A-wD 1 Ii L ftc, Cvf 8
HCSMii TWSC Version 7.9.5
02AM_EX + PROJ.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:48:28 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
AM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.91 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
CUMULATIVE
Lanes
l l 1.
t
,�.=
id-
tY
Major Street. North -South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
33 41
702
70 0
52 385
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left
Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
36 45
57 Capacity, c (veh/h)
350
576
779
v/c Ratio
0.10 0.08
0.07 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.3 0.3
0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)
16.5 11.8
10.0 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
13.9 1 2
Approach LOS
B
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
AwD 111,3 1E.G Las e
HCS TWSC Version 7.9.5
02AM_CU M.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:49:10 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
AM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.91 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
Lanes
),-4,4 .,*E It
11 �
A-
4 ir- f:
t Y'
Major Street North South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
39 54
702
77 0
69 385
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
43 59
76 Capacity, c (veh/h)
341
572
774
v/c Ratio
0.13 0.10
0.10 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.4 0.3
0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)
17.1 12.0
10.2 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
B
Approach Delay (s/veh)
14.1 1 5
Approach LOS
B
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
AWD, 12..S J c: C®'s 8
HCSVIN TWSC Version 7.9.5
02AM_CUM + PROJ.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:49:46 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
PM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.95 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
EXISTING
Lanes
J4l,A.4.1LIi
4 -•
—t
1 1 1.
it_
c- 4-
.i—
t i'
11 "I I I- Y t I- r
Major Street North -South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
49 74
718
50 0
40 1010
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
52 78
42 Capacity, c (veh/h)
315
593
806
v/c Ratio
0.16 0.13
0.05 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.6 0.5
0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)
18.6 12.0
9.7 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
14.6 04
Approach LOS
B
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. �✓� ` 13, ;EL = C.aS B
HCSS�"i�l TWSC Version 7.9.5
02PM_EX.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:57:00 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
PM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.95 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
EXISTING + PROJECT
Lanes
-4
4 1 1 E.
�+-
t T-
A 1' `''`t 't r
Major Street North -South
lr
e
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
57 93
718
58 0
60 1010
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and
Level
of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
60 98
63 Capacity, c (veh/h)
302
589
800
v/c Ratio
0.20 0.17
0.08 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.7 0.6
0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)
19.9 12.3
9.9 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
15.2 0 6
Approach LOS
C
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
IND::13,7 f'L I
HCSTINI TWSC Version 7.9.5
02PM_EX + PROJ.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:57:45 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
PM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.95 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
CUMULATIVE
Lanes
1 1 L.
-4
4 �
t—
t I-
a-
4-,
if—
A 'I 't *Y't P r
Major Street North -South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
49 74
744
50 0
40 1033
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
52 78
42 Capacity, c (veh/h)
306
581
787
v/c Ratio
0.17 0.13
0.05 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.6 0.5
0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)
19.1 12.2
9.8 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
14.9 0 4
Approach LOS
B
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
AwD 13,1 Sec = 14J 8
HCS1N TWSC Version 7.9.5
02PM_CUM.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:58:53 PM
HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report s :�
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
GOM
Intersection
BROADWAY/ROEMER
Agency/Co.
ATE
Jurisdiction
SANTA MARIA
Date Performed
11/23/2021
East/West Street
ROEMER
Analysis Year
2021
North/South Street
BROADWAY
Time Analyzed
PM PEAK HOUR
Peak Hour Factor
0.95 Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs)
0.25 Project Description
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
Lanes
' i 141 Lti.
1 1 L.
R--
-4
t F-
Major Street North -South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
Priority
10 11
12 7
8 9
1U
1 2
3 4U
4 5
6 Number of Lanes
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
Configuration
L
R
T
TR
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
57 93
744
58 0
60 1033
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)
3 3
3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%)
0 Right Turn Channelized
No
Median Type I Storage
Left Only
2 Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec)
7.5 6.9
4.1 Critical Headway (sec)
6.86 6.96
4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.5 3.3
2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec)
3.53 3.33
2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)
60 98
63 Capacity, c (veh/h)
293
577
782
v/c Ratio
0.20 0.17
0.08 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)
0.8 0.6
0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)
20.4 12.5
10.0 Level of Service (LOS)
C
B
B
Approach Delay (s/veh)
15.5 0 5
Approach LOS
C
Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.
A -w9 : i3,q 5&c w- 1,0i a
HCS≥TW TWSC Version 7.9.5
02PM_CUM + PROJ.xtw
Generated: 12/2/2021 3:59:53 PM
#21075 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: BROADWAY
EM/ STREET: TAYLOR STREET
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASED
REF: 03AM
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 32 467 2 20 318 71 254 13 69
11 12 23
(B) PROJECT -ADDED 0 6 0 0 5 1 1 0 0
0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE 32 494 2 20 334 73 258 13 70
11 12 23
GEOMETRICS
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L T TR LT R
L TR
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
# OF
SCENARIO VOLUMES
SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS
LANES
CAPACITY
1 2 3 4
1 2
3 4
NBL
1 1600
32 32 32 32
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
NBT
2 3200
467 473 494 500
0.147
*
0.148 *
0.155 *
0.157
*
N BR (a)
0 0
2 2 2 2
-
-
-
-
SBL
1 1600
20 20 20 20
0.013
*
0.013 *
0.013 *
0.013
*
SBT
2 3200
318 323 334 339
0.118
0.119
0.123
0.125
SBR (b)
0 0
58 59 60 61
-
-
-
-
EBL
0 0
254 255 258 259
-
-
-
-
EBT
1 1600
13 13 13 13
0.167
*
0.168 *
0.169 *
0.170
*
EBR (c)
1 1600
32 32 32 32
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
WBL
1 1600
11 11 11 11
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
WBT
1 1600
12 12 12 12
0.012
*
0.012 *
0.012 *
0.012
*
WBR (d)
0 0
7 7 7 7
-
-
-
-
LOST TIME:
0.100
'
0.100 '
0.100 "
0.100
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
0.439
0.441
0.449
0.452
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
A
A
A
A
NOTES:
RTOR: (a) 17%
(b) 18%
(c) 54%
(d) 68%
Printed: 12/03/21
#21075 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT REF: 03PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2021
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: BROADWAY
E/W STREET: TAYLOR STREET
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASED
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
VOLUMES
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 139 513 11 72 741 267 210 32 119 29 51 59 (B) PROJECT -ADDED 0 7 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE 140 536 11 72 761 270 213 32 119 29 51 59
GEOMETRICS
LANE GEOMETRICS
NORTH BOUND
L T TR
SOUTH BOUND
L T TR
EAST BOUND
LT R
WEST BOUND
L TR
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
MENTS
# OF
LANES
CAPACITY
SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
NBL
NBT
N B R (a)
SBL
SBT
S B R (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
1 2
0 1
2 0
0 0
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 0
1600
1600
1600
1600
0 139 139 140 140
513 520 536 543
10 10 10 10
72 72 72 72
741 748 761 768
198 198 200 201
210 211 213 214
32 32 32 32
55 55 55 55
29 29 29 29
51 51 51 51
37 37 37 37
0.087 *
0.163
0.045
0.293 *
0.151 *
0.034
0.018
0.055 *
0.087 *
0.166
0.045
0.296 *
0.152 *
0.034
0.018
0.055 *
0.088 *
0.171
0.045
0.300 *
0.153 *
0.034
0.018
0.055 *
0.088 *
0.173
0.045
0.303 *
0.154 *
0.034
0.018
0.055 *
LOST TIME:
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.100 *
0.686
B
0.100 *
0.690
B
0.100 *
0.696
B
0.100 *
0.700
B
NOTES:
RTOR: (a) 6%
(b) 26%
(c) 54%
(d) 38
Printed: 12/02/21
#21075 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2021
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: BROADWAY
E/W STREET: GRANT STREET
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASED
REF: 04AM
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 19 438 36 34 323 17 37 29 66
42 19 65
(B) PROJECT -ADDED 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE 19 458 36 35 336 20 41 29 66
42 19 68
GEOMETRICS
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
WEST BOUND
LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L T TR L TR
L TR
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
# OF
SCENARIO VOLUMES
SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS
LANES
CAPACITY
1 2 3 4
1 2
3 4
NBL
1 1600
19 19 19 19
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
NBT
2 3200
438 444 458 464
0.146
*
0.148 *
0.153 *
0.154
*
NBR (a)
0 0
30 30 30 30
-
-
-
-
SBL
1 1600
34 34 35 35
0.021
*
0.021 *
0.022 *
0.022
*
SBT
2 3200
323 328 336 341
0.106
0.107
0.111
0.112
SBR (b)
0 0
15 15 18 18
-
-
-
-
EBL
1 1600
37 37 41 41
0.023
0.023
0.026
0.026
EBT
1 1600
29 29 29 29
0.042
*
0.042 *
0.042 *
0.042
*
EBR (c)
0 0
38 38 38 38
-
-
-
-
WBL
1 1600
42 42 42 42
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.026
WBT
1 1600
19 19 19 19
0.036
*
0.036 *
0.038 *
0.038
*
WBR (d)
0 0
39 39 41 41
-
-
-
-
LOST TIME:
0.100
*
0.100 *
0.100 *
0.100
*
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
0.345
0.347
0.355
0.356
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
A
A
A
A
NOTES:
RTOR: (a) 16%
(b) 9%
(c) 43%
(d) 40%
Printed: 12/02/21
#21075 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2021
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: BROADWAY
E/W STREET: GRANT STREET
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASED
REF: 04PM
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
VOLUMES
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND
L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 95 602 112 73 704 63 37 54 81 125 95 89
(B) PROJECT -ADDED 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) CUMULATIVE 96 620 113 75 719 66 40 54 82 126 95 92
GEOMETRICS
LANE GEOMETRICS
NORTH BOUND
L T TR
SOUTH BOUND
L T TR
EAST BOUND
L TR
WEST BOUND
L TR
TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES(A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = CUMULATIVE (C)
SCENARIO 4 = CUMULATIVE + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
MENTS
# OF
LANES
CAPACITY
SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
1 2
0 1
2 0
0 0
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 1600
1600
0 1600
1600
0 95 95 96 96
602 609 620 627
72 72 72 72
73 73 75 75
704 711 719 726
57 57 60 60
37 37 40 40
54 54 54 54
65 65 66 66
125 125 126 126
95 95 95 95
57 57 59 59
0.059 *
0.211
0.046
0.238 *
0.023
0.074 *
0.078
0.095 *
0.059 *
0.213
0.046
0.240 *
0.023
0.074 *
0.078
0.095 *
0.060 *
0.216
0.047
0.243 *
0.025
0.075 *
0.079
0.096 *
0.060 *
0.218
0.047
0.246 *
0.025
0.075 *
0.079
0.096 *
LOST TIME:
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0.100 *
0.566
A
0.100
0.568
A
0.100 *
0.574
A
0.100 *
0.577
A
NOTES:
RTOR: (a) 36%
(b) 9%
(c) 20%
(d) 36
Printed: 12/02/21
Appendix C
wsc
Technical Memo
Date: ❑CID❑LWL_M_1
To: MarEIMEallerEPEEShad SprbDerLp❑
Prepared By: Patr❑lll ParCL❑CT
Reviewed By: ❑osh❑a ReDloldsEPE
Project: HolCda❑Inn ❑dress Hotel ❑❑LotDs Mana❑ement Cn
Subject: Sewer CapaL1t❑St❑d
1.0 Summary
The C[t❑o❑Santa Marla IL
t
has re❑eiLed a de elopment re ❑❑lest to Constr❑Lt a ❑❑Doom hotel on Roemer CoLrt❑ThIS proposed deLelopment was not aLLboited Cor E the ❑❑❑❑ ❑tdi s Capa t St❑d Eased on the IoL tCon❑thS pro[aLt CD❑Id potentEll❑trU❑er sewer L Lade pro[e❑ts CAI and DCID❑as desL7-C❑ed 1 the ❑❑❑❑ ❑tWs Capa t St❑d Tht TelEhnnal Memorandum (TM) evaluates the additional demand posed by the project on the City's existing CblleC bns stem to determEe ❑the e stb❑s tem Can s entlElserEe the addibnal demand❑The st❑d❑also deplo❑ed sewer lbw meters to Lhelli lbw xi the eLJ tE❑sewer near probEt CCIDto determ ne Illthe sewer model deLbloped lb the ❑❑❑❑ ❑t[fltles CapaEILIStEdES s❑CllEantl❑alEEErate for Cse 1 e❑ai❑at[n❑the LbnneCTbn oLlthe ❑❑doom hotel❑ ProCaEts CCU and DEE ldentned Cn the ❑❑❑❑ EtMlitbs Capa ]St❑dllEshown Ce ❑L❑re ❑ and t
❑u❑re se❑oral pC elbes downstream oLthe proposed proleLt that Lt Ltd potentlall❑ ❑e ❑apaElitEl Cbnstrabed ❑ ❑oth prof Lts C® and DEE re❑❑❑re Epsome st[n❑ ❑❑❑or ❑❑ DEh mallls to ❑❑®lri mays❑
WSC understands that the City's sewage flows decreased subsequent to the 2012 Utilities CapalliDSt❑d❑as a res It o-sLai ant water onser❑atidn e forts trIn❑ered ❑❑sLstaled drol _Eht Cbnd<tlons o I rrn❑I Tom ❑❑❑[ to LIWLJWs the [lbw meterla❑wl i show❑el❑_stl iEsewa e lows in the C r p!peline are lower than ant IIpated the ❑u❑❑ ❑tltitlas CapantEISt❑d C t❑ o❑Santa Marla
HoILda❑ Enn =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana_ement AIDE
Sewer Capa❑lt❑ St❑d❑
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
wsc
o
0 o
o
Sewa e low meter
nstalled here
0 p
0 ❑pprournate proposed pont
o❑❑bnne❑thn Hollda❑ l in
=press on Roemer Coot❑
Legend
righ lgtrec C P
CIP Pipelines
CIP Pipeline Priority
cccccz <:;L•rert Capacdy
Eccoars Capacity-0-5-?HF
Ecceece Caiacih•-5.1C-PHF
E [toRt Caai ciIv-BwliAut
2S0
123
D
(' ttt E
7. 2S0 Fpt
o
A
Sewa❑e lbw
dlr7eLt®n arrow❑
o
8vuoei Esn UCLOorke 4.4E. lQlZS kiPtrrnap ncremerr. P Cory.
IHurg Ktoo b nbm
NIKON
Figure 1. Project C-4
C[t❑ o❑Santa MarL
HoICda❑ CDn =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana ement I1❑C
Sewer CapaCAE St❑d❑
❑an LarLI ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
LWSC
0 Legend
High:tghl.d CIP Plpatire
CIP Pipelines
1 NOt CIP
1 CiP Pipeline Priority
Eicccc!: Cu-rcrt CapxiI',
E,ca.lc C.-oar.lty-0-5-OI+Z=
fill E,ce»cs Cil nciIv S le PHF
E ir_onrs Ca:wiry-Stull-DA
...t.--•J'trot
O O
0 0 p
Sewa❑e how
d rel3Ctn arrow❑
•
❑ppro mate proposed poL t
o❑IPbnneCt on I_dr Holda❑ Lin
❑Gress on Roemer CoLirt
downstream Tom here❑
ofa
J
C,
O b -h O —
,1 • N
:5d0 Feet
—0-0
O I aounes. Em Dewitt HERE 125+35 hkrtn]p O:nmctR P tot. n!} nN ��`. Esi Jean MEM an prn‘ iI$ ;1 EMI i�hiw.n i TbnI r
Figure 2. Project D-7
CAE o❑Santa Marra
HoiLda❑ =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana❑ement C�h❑C
Sewer Capa❑Ct❑ Stahl
Dan liar ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
LLflWSC
1.1 Flow Monitoring
The sewer system was evaluated using the City's sewer collection system hydraulic model in Bentley's Sewer❑❑MS modelln❑sotware❑To L r model aillEa tow monitbr1pwas end❑led between ❑❑M❑M❑q❑thro❑l1 EDII❑rm u linear the proCeLt Io❑atbn Lee ❑L❑Lre ❑qto oIaLn oneLWee❑o❑data on [lbw❑❑lo it And le❑el wthln the manhole IoLI ted at the Interse❑tLn o❑Channel Dr❑Ie and ❑arden DrIII L1The reslts o❑the low montbrtn❑are sLPimarl❑d [n Tale ❑and Ind❑ded [n ❑ppendr❑❑
Table 1. Average Velocity, Level, and Flow Data from Flow Monitoring Period Velocity, feet per
second
Level, inch
Average Flow,
gallons per
minute
Average Flow,
gallons pe
day
❑❑ra ❑e
❑L❑❑
❑M❑❑
❑❑M
❑❑❑M❑❑
The data oLaLned Isom tbw montbrl3❑was Compared to the Ioadln n the ellittL❑model or the Mil❑❑era❑e DaE]❑❑low rmD❑❑and CUM ODs❑enartI❑The model predAs Ereater low than the tow montbrlb❑data I]ider ❑oth sLenarbs wtho❑t the add tonal Pro lt demand as shown L3 Tale CIE The model LLelds a onserLI t❑e est[mate o❑❑bnd{trons there ore❑no han es to the load n In the model were mader
Table 2. Comparison of Flow Monitoring Data with Model Output (Pipe ID 5814) Flow Monitoring
Average Flow, gpd
Model Output
Average Flow, gpd
Model Scenarie
❑❑❑M❑❑
DIID ❑D❑
❑❑❑M❑❑
EOM ❑DI I
1.2 Flow Projection
Th8s prod 8 planned to ❑e Llbnstr❑Lted on an ❑nde❑eloped par❑el❑Th8 area had preL❑sI❑ ❑een Ldenti_❑ed as ❑to.e Cbmmer Al de❑elopment In the ❑❑❑❑ ❑t s Capa t St❑d❑and antMpated lower wastewater enerat!in lappro Imatel❑ ❑M❑❑ ❑pd totalED The proposed pro e t sewer I enerat!bn S Lased on an est mated wastewater eneratCbn _aI for o❑❑❑ Lallons per da❑ per room,- The resltln❑sewer _enerat:on Tom the pro el t ❑ El Lpd Ender ❑D❑ Cnndt0ns❑ It
CID o❑Santa Marla
HolLda❑ Ann =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana_ement C�❑L
Sewer Capa❑Ct❑ Stahl
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
LLJtWSC
❑❑appl MD a pea nD Caltor o❑❑iffi❑Cthe estimated pea❑hod- demand L r the proleLt ® =D❑ Cpd❑The pea ri❑ CaLtor ❑sed Cor th® st❑d❑was also Led la the ❑❑❑❑ ❑t s Capa t St❑d
2.0 Evaluation Criteria
The new Tow Tom the proposed deIlopment was added to the CblleC bn sLItem at the ants gated post o❑❑onneC ®n and eL I❑ated ❑,ti❑the eDalDatlen l-ltrI deso d ❑slow❑ Capa t_ was elial❑ated ❑nder Pea❑Ho❑r low CPH❑❑DondThns❑ThS [Cow ❑eneratL n o❑the proposed proL Lt was added to the e stCo❑ tht analLS®❑
The sewer LIbIIeLtIbn s -stem was e❑aI❑ated ❑s13❑the I]Lr i presented la Tale ❑❑❑oLthe ❑❑❑❑ ❑tlI s Capa❑IDSt❑d The pr mart D Et r[a ❑sed was the depth o low to d[ameter oCpCpe rat ADM ❑or sewer ppel nes o❑❑❑ nilh dCameter or less _the allowale dD [a ❑E❑ Dor sewer pLellees diameter and lar❑er❑the allowar_le d D s l_
3.0 Results
The proposed project was modeled in the City's existing hydraulic model under the OM Dear PHD= Dear PH❑❑and ❑❑ado IlEO❑sCenar[os❑ Resits o the h❑dral_❑ analanal la are pro❑ded Ch Tale ❑❑fil❑dnDantlIClpated ❑O lindltlons with and wlthoLt the pro[eLt❑One p[pellae downstream oche proposed ProE❑t lid:ates ❑apa❑ll lases and does not meet the dD l rft rA Ender the PHD s❑onarb wT estimated demands n the ❑❑❑❑ Jtl s Capa❑ E St❑ lD = ❑ear deL Iopment sDnarCe❑The prpelbes that e❑leed the desDlf LtterA are hDhliffhted oran❑e and E dEate that the proposed Prof Lt w[tl trL❑er Capa❑ ❑ amnstralats rl one seL rent oCiProbEt DEE Dri the 0=_Oar de elopment sPenarlrEThe pro e t s not eCperted to tr®❑er ProCel The relatDn oche downstream maIs Tom the proposed Pro@Ct to Pro Cells C0E and DI U are shown la ❑tae Land - _=il e ❑❑❑O Cond Cons are also pro red la Tale ❑ and ❑❑f es ❑ and ❑❑
C[t❑ o❑Santa Marla
Hol da nn press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana_ement C�❑C
Sewer Capa❑Ct❑ Stahl
Ian Dar ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
LLJtWSC
Table 3. Model Results
0-5
PHF
5-10
PHF
BO
PHF
BO PHF
with
Project
Demand
Pipe
Figure
Label
Model
ID
Label
Length,
feet
Diameter,
Inch
d/D,
%
d/D,
%
d/D,
%
o
d/D, /o
❑
❑❑D
❑
❑❑I
SP ❑❑❑❑❑ M ❑❑
❑❑I m
❑❑O❑
❑❑E❑
❑❑E❑
❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑CM ❑❑
❑❑❑
❑❑
❑❑ M
❑ U ID
I
D❑EI❑
❑
❑❑❑❑
S P ❑❑❑❑❑CM D❑
❑❑❑
D❑
MUM
❑❑®❑
DDDD
D❑[ID❑
❑D❑❑
❑❑
❑❑
DEED
❑❑®❑
❑❑❑7❑
S P ❑❑❑❑❑CM D❑
❑❑l❑
C
❑❑D❑
SP =ECM D❑
DD❑
O❑
D❑®❑
OE=
❑D®❑
E=E
❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑I M ❑❑
❑❑
❑❑
❑❑ DE
❑❑®❑
DE=
mum
❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑ M ❑D
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑
❑Du❑
❑❑M❑
❑❑ M
❑❑D7❑
SP =ELM DC
❑❑
❑❑
D❑❑
❑❑ M
❑❑um
D❑❑M
❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑ M ❑C
❑❑❑
❑❑
❑❑ED
❑❑❑7❑
DEEM
❑❑L❑
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
SPFEEDEM❑C
ODD
❑❑
❑❑ni
D❑=
❑❑E❑
m m
❑❑
SP ❑❑❑D❑I/I ❑C
❑❑
❑❑D❑
D❑D
❑❑ E
D❑®D
❑❑❑ E
EWE
❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑DM ❑D
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
❑❑D
MUM
❑❑E❑
❑❑C n
❑❑[ DE
❑❑
SePpes��pdated❑
Eli
DEM
❑❑❑
LEI=
DDI=
DE❑
❑❑
D ❑DI❑
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑LM CD
❑❑❑
❑❑
O=O
❑❑ M
E=E
❑❑ IE
❑❑
SP =DEEM ❑D
❑❑
❑DM
❑❑D
DEM
❑DE❑
O=E
O=E
❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑I M ❑D
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
❑❑D
MUM
❑❑E❑
mm❑
❑DCn
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
SP =EOM ❑D
❑❑❑
❑❑
❑❑ ii
MED
❑❑D
❑❑❑
❑D
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑LIM ❑D
D❑❑
❑❑
❑❑EE
❑❑rm
DOD
D❑❑
❑❑
❑❑❑D
S P ❑❑❑❑❑LM D❑
❑❑❑
❑❑
❑❑EE
D❑®❑
MD
LEE
❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑CM ❑❑
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑
❑❑L❑
❑❑=
❑❑❑a❑
❑❑C❑❑
❑❑
❑❑
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑ M ❑❑
❑❑E❑
❑❑um
E=E
❑❑E❑
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑ E1rnL tl CO
D❑D
D❑
O=E
❑D®D
EEC=
D=E
D❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑D❑LM ❑❑
DD❑
D❑
❑D®D
EEEE
D❑=
D❑®❑
❑❑
❑❑
❑❑❑❑
SP ❑❑❑❑❑ M ❑❑
❑❑❑
❑❑E❑
EWE
DEEM
DEEM
CIE o❑Santa MarL
Hol_da❑ inn =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana_ement C�❑C
Sewer Capa❑m❑ St❑d❑
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
wsc
Legend
- Project
Manhole
— Scare Main
d/D for
Downstream Mains
d/D
— Less than 75
Greater than 75
CIP Project
MC -4
Project demand loaded here
131
Sewer Capacity Analysis
Holiday Inn at Roemer Court
Peak Hour Demand
5-10 Year Scenano with
Proposed Project Demand, d/D
lU wsc
Figure 3. 5-10 Year PHD Modeled Pipelines and Relation to Project C-4 C[t❑ o❑Santa MarL
Hol da nn press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana ement ❑C
Sewer Capa❑m❑ St AEI
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
wsc
Sewer Capacity Analysis
Holiday Inn at Roemer Court
Peak Hour Demand
5-10 Year Scenario with
Proposed Pro)ect Demand, d/D
Uli DISC
Figure 4. 5-10 Year PHD Modeled Pipelines and Relation to Project D-7 C[t❑ o❑Santa MarL
Hol da nn press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana ement GAEL
Sewer Capa❑m❑St ❑d❑
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Sewer Capacity Analysis
Holiday Inn at Roemer Court
Peak Hour Demand
BO Scenario, d/D
wsc
q„. DISC
Figure 5. Modeled Buildout PHF Pipelines and Relation to CIP Projects C ❑ o'❑Santa MarfI
HolLda❑ jinn ❑❑press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana❑ement GAEL
Sewer Capa❑tESt❑d❑
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Sewer Capacity Analysis
Holiday Inn at Roemer Court
Peak Hour Demand
BO Scenario including Project Demand
d/D
Figure 6. Modeled Buildout PHF and Project Demand Pipelines and Relation to CIP Projects.
CAE o❑Santa Marl
DISC
❑❑ HoICda❑ In =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s Mana❑ement ❑
Sewer Capa❑Ct❑ Stahl
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
LLJtWSC
The resdts oLthe AipaEts to the proposed CP proCb❑ts Wider Ear[OL Ioadli❑sL narbs are sErnmar d Tade ❑❑
Table 4. Impacts to CIP Projects Summary
Proposed
Project
Status At:
Existing Flow (0-
5 PHF)
5-10 PHF
Buildout PHF
Buildout PHF
+ Project
COE
O❑
O❑
O❑
O❑
DEL
O❑
❑seanent oL er
❑seEtnents
❑seErnents
L pa It❑
orbr L pa t
oLI r L pa t l
3.1 Conclusion
Eased on the analrtS ❑bmpleted tht TMLthe C[tD rrentl❑has Lapa Fmr the proposed prolLtL The proposed pro[[probEt t not el elted to trE❑er CapaninLbnstraLned prods CI:Eland D� Cdentned A the ❑❑❑❑ Elites Capa t St❑dl
CALI o❑Santa Mary
Holatiall in =press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana_ement C�❑C
Sewer Capa❑m❑ St❑d❑
❑an❑ar❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
(1.0 wsc
Appendix A Flow Monitoring Results
C[t❑ o❑Santa MarIt ❑❑
HoliLda❑ -nn ❑❑press Hotel ❑❑ Lot❑s
Mana ement GAEL
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting Methods & Procedures & Equipment
Methods and Procedures
Utility Systems Science & Software provided Water Systems Consulting with an off the shelf, non-proprietary flow monitoring solution that included one state of the art Hach Flo -Dar® AV Sensor system. The project course of action is listed below. The US3 team:
• Assessed traffic control at the site on Garden Dr in Santa Maria, CA. • Installed and removed traffic control in accord with site specific California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook (CATTCH) requirements for the installation, calibration and removal of equipment.
• Validated the site for suitability for sewer flow monitoring. o The Garden Dr MH had moderate open channel hydraulics with some turbulence due to inflow from lateral entering from the north. Monitored the downstream line to get total flow.
• Installed and calibrated the flow monitoring equipment at the site per manufacturer recommendations on 12/13/2022.
o Follow-up on the installation confirmed equipment was reading properly. o Collected 15 -minute interval depth and velocity data points over the entire monitoring period.
• Removed the equipment on 12/21/2022 and validated the data. o All of the equipment went through diagnostic testing before and after the study with less than a 1°/0 deviation between manual and meter level readings and less than a 5% deviation between manual and meter velocity readings. o Equipment calibration was verified in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
• Prepared the data reports.
o The table below contains a summary of the average (Avg) and maximum (Max) velocities (Vel) and levels (Lev) collected during this study as well as the calculated flow rates (Flow) and depth versus diameter ratios (d/D).
Pipe
Size
(in)
Avg
VeI
(fps)
Max
VeI
(fps)
Avg
Lev
(in)
Max
Lev
(in)
Avg
Flow
(gpm)
Max
Flow
(gpm)
Avg
d/D
Max
d/D
12 2.07
2.68 2.01
3.14 86.60
185.21
0.17 0.26
Utility Systems Science & Software
H!)
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting Equipment
Radar Velocity
Ultrasonic �J
Depth
Surcharge
Velocity
Figure above: Equipment installed for the Sewer Flow Monitoring Study Figure above: Web -Enabled Flo -Dar® AV Sensor, Radar -Based Velocity/Area Flow Meter Utility Systems Science & Software
U!)S
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting FloDar® AV Sensor Specifications:
• Enclosure
o IP68 Waterproof rating, Polystyrene
• Dimensions
o 160.5 W x 432.2 L x 297 D mm (6.32 x 16.66 x 11.7 in.), o With SVS, D = 387 mm (15.2 in.)
• Weight
o 4.8 kg (10.5 lbs.)
• Operating Temperature
o -10 to 50°C (14 to 122°F)
• Storage Temperature
o -40 to 60°C (-40 to 140°F)
• Power Requirements
o Supplied by FL900 Flow Logger, Flo -Logger, or Flo -Station • Interconnecting Cable
o Disconnect available at both sensor and logger or Flo -Station o Polyurethane, 0.400 (±0.015) in. diameter; IP68
o Standard length 9 m (30 ft), maximum 305 m (1000 ft)
• Cables — available in two styles:
o connectors at both ends
o connector from sensor with open leads to desiccant hub, desiccant hub with connector to logger. A potting/sealant kit will be included. This can be used to run the cable through conduit.
• Certification
o Certified to: FCC Part 15.245: FCC ID: VIC-FLODAR24
o Industry Canada Spec. RSS210. v7: IC No.: 6149A-FLODAR24
SURCHARGE DEPTH MEASUREMENT
o Auto zero function maintains zero error below 0.5 cm (0.2 in.) • Method
o Piezo-resistive pressure transducer with stainless steel diaphragm • Range
o 3.5 m (138 in.), overpressure rating 2.5 x full scale
VELOCITY MEASUREMENT
• Method
o Radar
• Range
o 0.23 to 6.10 m/s (0.75 to 20 ft/s)
Utility Systems Science & Software
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting • Frequency Range
o 24.075 to 24.175 GHz, 15.2 mW (max.)
• Accuracy
o ±0.5%; ±0.03 m/s (±0.1 ft/s)
DEPTH MEASUREMENT
• Method
o Ultrasonic
• Standard Operating Range from Flo -Dar® Housing to Liquid o 0 to 152.4 cm (0 to 60 in.)
• Optional Extended Level Operating Range from Transducer Face to Liquid o 0 to 6.1 m (0 to 20 ft.) with 43.18 cm (17 in.) dead band, temperature compensated. • Accuracy
o ±1%; ±0.25 cm (±0.1 in.)
FLOW MEASUREMENT
• Method
o Based on Continuity Equation
• Accuracy
o ±5% of reading typical where flow is in a channel with uniform flow conditions and is not surcharged, ±1% full scale max.
SURCHARGE CONDITIONS DEPTH/VELOCITY DEPTH (Std with Flo -Dar® Sensor) • Surcharge depth supplied by Flo -Dar® sensor.
VELOCITY (Optional Surcharge Velocity Sensor)
• Method
o Electromagnetic
• Range
o ±4.8 m/s (±16 ft/s)
• Accuracy
o ±0.15 ft/s or 4% of reading, whichever is greater.
• Zero Stability
o ±0.05 ft/s
The Flo -Dar® Open Channel Flow Meters provide an innovative approach to open channel flow monitoring. Combining digital Doppler radar velocity sensing with ultrasonic pulse echo level sensing Flo -Dar® provides accurate open channel flow monitoring without the fouling problems associated with submerged sensors.
Utility Systems Science & Software
H!)
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting Perfect Solution for Difficult Flow Conditions:
• Flows with High Solids Content
• High Temperature Flows
• Caustic Flows
• Large Man -Made Channel
• High Velocities
• Shallow Flows
Velocity
Footprint
Level
Footprint
Benefits:
1. Personnel have no contact with the flow during installation.
2. Maintenance caused by sensor fouling is eliminated
3. Field Replaceable/Interchangeable Sensors and Monitors Utility Systems Science & Software
IIIn%
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting How It Works
Flo -Dar® transmits a digital Doppler radar beam that interacts with the fluid and reflects back signals at a different frequency than that which was transmitted. These reflected signals are compared with the transmitted frequency. The resulting frequency shift provides an accurate measure of the velocity and the direction of the flow. Level is detected by ultrasonic pulse echo. Flow is then calculated based on the Continuity Equation:
Q = V x A, Where Q = Flow, V = Average Velocity and A = Area Accurate Flow Measurements
Flo -Dar® provides the user with highly accurate flow measurements under a wide range of flows and site conditions. By measuring the velocity of the fluid from above, Flo -Dar® eliminates accuracy problems inherent with submerged sensors including sensor disturbances, high solids content and distribution of reflectors.
Figure above: US3 utilizes exclusively Hach March-McBirney Flo -Dar® Meters Utility Systems Science & Software
H!)
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting US3 Company Information
US3 is a California Corporation Federal ID No. 33-0729605 and qualifies as a Minority Business Enterprise. US3 has certified as an MBE with the California Public Utility Commission's authorized clearinghouse, Verification Number: 97ES0008.
US3 is a specialty service company for the Water & Waste Water industry, providing monitoring and control for Utilities since 1996. US3 is in the forefront of this industry by taking the proven technological approaches developed in other high-tech industries and applying them to protect one of our most precious natural resources - our water.
US3 engineers and technical personnel have applied advanced instrumentation system technology to water/wastewater open channel flow monitoring, pipeline evaluation, engineering, and data analysis, all coupled to the power of the Internet. This unique integrated systems approach allows the company to bring greater insight and intelligence to gathering information about water/wastewater system performance of our clients, and in turn, to support the fulfillment of their commitments to manage and cost effectively design, operate, and maintain these systems.
Moreover, US3supports Municipalities, Consulting Engineering firms and other water/waste water systems integrators by providing temporary technical services for engineering, software programming and technical site maintenance and calibration site support work, primarily in the Water and Waste Water industries.
Figure at right: All US3
technicians are certified
for Confined Space Entry.
H!)
Utility Systems Science & Software
2022.12.13-21 Temporary Wastewater Flow Monitoring Water Systems Consulting Key Personnel Assigned
US3 provided the necessary resources to fully implement this project. Primary in support of this effort were the following personnel:
Mr. Mark Serres: Mr. Serres is a degreed electrical engineer with over 25 years of experience with fresh/wastewater systems, project management, and systems integration in relation to complex industrial systems. This includes experience in industrial automation and water/wastewater industries. Mr. Serres is responsible for assuring client satisfaction and marshalling the required resources to meet the project requirements.
Mr. Thomas Williams: Mr. Williams is an Engineering Manager with over 20 years of experience in complex systems development for wastewater monitoring. This experience includes hydraulic compatibility, instrumentation, communications and analysis. Mr. Williams is responsible for assuring that the required equipment is designed and calibrated to meet the project requirements.
Darlene Szczublewski, PE: Mrs. Szczublewski is a licensed Civil Engineer in multiple states. She has over 15 years of engineering experience with stormwater/wastewater related projects. She assisted in the completion of several Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Surveys and Capacity Analysis projects to meet Consent Decrees as well as completing numerous Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) studies for other clients. Mrs. Szczublewski has developed numerous flow data analysis techniques to present a clear informative picture of flow in a monitored system. Her work also includes the development of training programs for clients describing I&I and capacity analysis methodologies. Mrs. Szczublewski is responsible for analyzing the data as well as the data collection process and assuring that the reports meet the project requirements.
Name, title, address and telephone number of persons to contact regarding this US3 project.
Darlene Szczublewski, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
[email protected]
1300 Hill Street
EI Cajon, CA 92020
619-546-4281 (work)
619-246-5304 (cell)
Tom Williams
Engineering Manager
[email protected]
1300 Hill Street
EI Cajon, CA 92020
619-546-4281 (work)
619-398-7799 (cell)
Utility Systems Science & Software
H!)
Illn-
Site Report
Confidential Proprietary Information
12/22/2022
Water Systems Consulting
2022.12 Garden MH
MH at -2124 Garden Dr
Santa Maria, CA 93458
MH # unknown
Access:
MH at intersection of Channel Dr &
Garden Dr, west of address
System Type:
Sanitary n Storm n
Install Date: 12/13/2022
Map
Technology
Traffic Control
Flow Meter
Meter Depth: 80.3"
MH Coordinates: 34.979771, -120.435987
Moderate open channel hydraulics with some
turbulence due to inflow from lateral
Avg Velocity
Avg Measured Level
Multiplier
2.1 fps
2.0"
1.0 Gas
O2
H2S
CO
LEL
20.9 o
o
o
Notes
Pipes entering from north & east; monitored the
downstream line to get total flow.
Traffic Safety
Used arrow board, cones & signs in accord
w/site-specific CATTCH requirements.
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Trunk
X
Manhole Depth
98.5"
Monitored Pipe Size
12"
Inner Pipe Size (In/Out)
12"/12"
Pipe Shape
Round
Pipe Condition
Good
Manhole Material
Concrete
Silt
None observed
Velocity Profile Data
Passed
Velocity Profile Taken
0.4 2-D
Sensor Offset
18.2"
Sensor Dist. to Crown
6.2"
Sensor Direction
Downstream
Flow Heading
West
arden MH
4 Garden Dr
, CA 93458
Ilin
J
Meter Site Document
2022.12 G
MH at -212
Santa Mari
Site
Installation Process
Downstream
Temporary Flow Study
Water Systems Consulting
2022.12 Garden MH
Meter Start Date
From
12/13/2022
Meter Stop Date
To
12/21/2022
Velocity (fps)
Level (in)
Flow (mgd)
Average
2.077
2.042
0.128
Maximum
2.680
3.140
0.267
Minimum
1.600
0.440
0.010
Pipe Size
12.000
Estimated Capacity (mgd)
Not Calculated
Capacity Used
Not Calculated
Sensor Type
Hach - Flodar
Utility Systems, Science and Software
1300 Hill St
El Cajon, CA 92020
601 N. Parkcenter Dr, Suite 209
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Report Date: 12/22/2022
Customer: Water Systems Consulting
Group: Santa Maria Sewer FM
Site: 2022.12 Garden MH
2022.12 Garden MH
Level and Velocity
3.5 —
3 2.5 —
2-
1.5 —
1 0.5
0 200
—150
—100
— 50
12/14/ 2022 12/15/ 2022
— Velocity — Level — Flow
12/16/ 2022 12/17/ 2022
0 Velocity (fps)
Level (in)
Flow (gpm)
Average
2.069
2.025
87.602
Maximum
2.680
3.140
185.210
Minimum
1.600
0.440
7.212
RainFall
Inches
12/22/2022
2022.12 Garden MH
Level and Velocity
3 2.5
2 1.5
1 0.5
0 12/18/ 2022
12/19/ 2022
12/20/ 2022
— Velocity — Level — Flow
200
150
100
50 0
Velocity (fps)
Level (in)
Flow (gpm)
Average
2.061
1.987
85.418
Maximum
2.560
2.940
171.331
Minimum
1.640
0.530
9.588
RainFall
Inches
12/22/2022
z•
>
U)
J
3.5 2022.12 Garden MH
•
•
2.5 •
'
•
�'
■
■
■
■r
■•
■ ■ m■ ■
■ ■
2 ■
■.
■•r■
•
■ ■
■
1.5 ■ 6
•
■■
■
1 ■
•
•
0.5 0
■
■■
ti
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
Velocity (fps)
2.0 2.5
12/13/2022 thru 12/21/2022
12/22/2022 11:32:09 AM
Appendix D
Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the Draft Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) prepared for the Holiday Inn Express project (Project).
The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day public review period that began on October 3, 2023 and ended on November 1, 2023 (SCH#2023100092). The City of Santa Maria received two comment letters on the Draft IS-MND. The commenters are listed in the table below.
An additional comment letter was received from the office of Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters on November 15, 2023, outside the 30 -day public review period, following completion of the DraftlS-MND, and prior to the first Planning Commission hearing on the project. This letter is added as "Letter 3".
Commenter
Organization
1. Emily Waddington
Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District
2. Mitchell M. Tsai
Mitchell M. Tsai on behalf of
Southwest Mountain States
Regional Council of Carpenters
3. Mitchell M. Tsai (received November
15, 2023)
Mitchell M. Tsai on behalf of
Western States Regional
Council of Carpenters
The three comment letters received are provided at the conclusion of this memo (Attachment 1 — Public Comment Letters). The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.2, for example, indicates that the response is for the second issue raised in comment Letter 1). Revisions to the Draft IS-MND necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft IS- MND, are included in the responses.
In addition, as part of preparing this Responses to Comments, City staff have revisited the remainder of the issue areas covered in the environmental document, including aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. After this review, and the edits
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
made in response to the comments received, Staff have concluded that all environmental topics required to be considered during CEQA review have been evaluated in a complete and thorough manner in the Final IS-MND.
To clearly depict the edits in the Draft IS-MND, underlined text represents text that has been added to the Draft IS-MND; text shown as strikeout text is text that has been deleted from the Draft IS-MND. Section numbers cited in this document correspond to the sections of the Draft IS-MND.
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Emily Waddington, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD)
DATE: October 31, 2023
Response 1.1
The commenter states that criteria pollutant emissions in Table 1: Operational Emissions Summary of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (Appendix A) do not seem to correspond with the emission results presented in Table 7 Estimated Total Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions and Table 8 Estimated Project Operational Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions on page 19 of the Environmental Checklist. Please explain or correct the discrepancy.
The following revision has been made to the pollutant emissions modeling in the Air Quality Section of the Draft IS-MND:
The emissions listed in Table 7 and Table 8 of the Draft Is-MND have been updated to correctly correspond with the emission summary in Table 1 of Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. The complete revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study is attached to the IS- MND as Appendix A.
Response 1.2
The commenter states that the discussion in the Methodology subsection of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section on page 34 of the Environmental Checklist explains that "the purpose of this analysis is to estimate greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted by the proposed project and compare the estimate to the SBCAPCD greenhouse gas regulations." The commentor states that the SBCAPCD does not have a board -adopted greenhouse gas threshold for commercial development projects. Please revise the discussion to reflect that the regulations discussed in this section, and in particular the greenhouse gas threshold used for the analysis are not those of the District.
The following revision has been made to the methodology discussion in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of the Draft IS-MND:
Responses to Comments Page 2 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted by the proposed project and compare the estimate to applicable air quality and greenhouse gas regulations and plans. he SBCAPCD greenhouse gas regu a ions.
The following revisions has been made to the GHG emissions discussion in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of the Draft IS-MND:
Since neither the SBCAPCD nor the City of Santa Maria have adopted GHG thresholds of significance for construction or operational GHG emissions, the Proposed Project's GHG emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The Proposed Project will be constructed in compliance with 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen, which are consistent with the goals outlined in AB 32, SB 32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Response 1.3
The commenter states that the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for the project (Appendix A) does not accurately model mobile trips for the proposed project. The trip rate for the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis should be based on a trip rate (in this case the ITE trip generation rate of 743 ADT) which encompasses all trips visiting the site including guest trips, employee trips, and heavy-duty truck trips. Please update Table 8 Estimated Project Operational Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions and Table 12 Estimated Project Construction and Operational GHG Emissions of the Environmental Checklist accordingly.
The following revision has been made to the pollutant emissions modeling in the Air Quality Section of the Draft IS-MND:
The emissions listed in Table 8 of the Draft Is-MND have been updated to include the updated trip generation rate of 743 ADT.
The following revision has been made to the GHG emissions discussion in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of the Draft IS-MND:
The emissions listed in Table 12 of the Draft Is-MND have been updated to include the updated trip generation rate of 743 ADT.
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Mitchell M. Tsai on behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters
DATE: October 31, 2023
Response 2.1
The commenter provides a summary of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC) and summarizes community benefits of local hiring practices. The commenter suggests that the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality, and Responses to Comments Page 3 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
transportation impacts. The commenter also asserts that all other comments on the environmental review are incorporated by reference.
Comments related to skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements do not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND and no revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary. With regard to the commenter's suggestion that policies or requirements to use local workforce would mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality, and transportation impacts, it must be noted that no significant impacts related to GHG emissions, air quality, or transportation are identified in the Final IS-MND. As discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 17, Transportation, of the Final IS-MND, the project would result in less than significant impacts without mitigation. As detailed in Section 3, Air Quality, of the Final IS-MND, the project would not result in construction emissions exceeding SBCAPCD thresholds. However, because the Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB is a nonattainment area for the state PM10 standard, construction emissions control measures are required for all projects involving earthmoving activities regardless of size or duration. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which includes various air pollutant emissions control measures, would be required to reduce construction emissions in accordance with local regulatory policies. While no significant impacts related to GHG emissions, air quality, or transportation have been identified in the Final IS-MND, the commenter's suggestion that the City should consider utilizing local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to mitigate such impacts will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Response 2.2
The commenter suggests the adoption of additional mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks related to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases as a result of project construction activities.
Federal and state agencies have agency rules and regulations for public safety related to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases among workers, including construction workers. The general contractor responsible for the development of the project would be required to comply with applicable health and safety regulations as set by applicable agencies, including the County, City, and State. It is the responsibility of the general contractor to implement the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards and regulations as related to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases throughout the duration of construction. It is also the responsibility of the general contractor's safety personnel and its subcontractors' safety personnel to implement health and safety regulations on the construction site for the duration of construction activities. The general contractor and its subcontractors would be required to comply with all applicable COVID-19 and other infectious diseases safety guidelines. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that there would be no significant impact to workers related to COVID-19 and other infectious disease with implementation and compliance of applicable federal, state, and OSHA required public health requirements. Therefore, preparation of an additional mitigation measure related to COVID-19 would not be required. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Responses to Comments Page 4 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
Response 2.3
The commenter opines that the project would be approved in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and describes the requirements of an E1R.
As described in the Draft IS-MND, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft IS-MND. As discussed throughout the Draft IS-MND and this Response to Comments document, a fair argument based on substantial evidence has not been raised that the project would result in a new significant impact or that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS-MND would not reduce identified potential environmental impacts below applicable thresholds of significance (also refer to Responses 2.4 through 2.11 for discussion of specific environmental effects and mitigation measures raised by the commenter). Therefore, preparation of an EIR for the proposed project would not be required. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 2.4
The commenter opines there is fair argument that the Project may have a significant biological resources impact.
The Draft IS-MND included literature review of the California Natural Diversity Database, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation, National Wetlands Inventory and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. A total of 20 special -status animal species have been documented in the Santa Maria Quadrangle. No special -status plant species were documented on the project site The mostly developed site area exhibits little to no habitat for sensitive species because the property is infill located in an urbanized area of Santa Maria that is surrounded by hotel and industrial development as well as a flood control channel maintained by the County of Santa Barbara. The project site is sparsely vegetated and has been regularly cleared of weeds under Title 5 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code. The project site is graded and regularly cleared of vegetation.
The project site does not contain riparian habitat, state or federally protected wetlands, or any other sensitive natural community. The project area does not support any surface water resources, migratory corridors, or nursery sites. There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 considers the presence of migratory birds and includes measures to avoid impacting those species. Therefore, no fair argument exists for significant impacts related to biological resources because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would lessen impacts to an insignificant level. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 2.5
Responses to Comments Page 5 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
The commenter states that Draft IS-MND Mitigation Measures BIO-1: Pre - construction Nesting Bird Surveys be revised to specify details of needed mitigation plans and performance standards.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required to address potential impacts to nesting bird species and migratory birds during construction activities. The mitigation provides a time frame (between September 1 and February 1) for which the mitigation would apply and specific parameters/performance standards for how to mitigate including implementation of buffer zones and monitoring until the young are no longer reliant on the nest site as determined by the City -approved biologist. Surveys, if necessary, would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. If project construction activities would occur during the specified time frame identified in the measure, then a biologist would be contracted to perform this work. It is not appropriate at this time in the development process to obtain a qualified biologist, as the actual dates of construction are not able to be identified prior to approval of the project. It would be speculative to name a biologist for this work when it is unknown if the work will be required. Further, the pre -construction nesting bird survey would be required pursuant to regulatory requirements for specific species for the completion of such report, if necessary.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 includes appropriately detailed mitigation plans and performance standards for reducing potential environmental impacts below applicable thresholds of significance, no revisions to the Draft IS-MND are required in response to this comment.
Response 2.6
The commenter mentions various other nearby sensitive receptors such as the adjacent hotels and the Gateway Business Center.
The following revision has been made to the Noise Section of the Draft IS-MND:
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include multiple hotels across the street from the project site as well as the single-family residences located to the south of the project approximately 700 feet away.
Response 2.7
The commenter opines that mitigation measures NOI-1 and NO1-2 are insufficient because merely relying on the Project's compliance with City noise requirements during periods of the day is insufficient to mitigate the Project's noise impacts to a level of insignificance. The IS/MND fails to show how the implementation of this measure will actually mitigate the noise impacts.
Proposed construction activities onsite and associated construction -related noise would be temporary and would observe the City's construction work hours, implementation of noise control for stationary equipment and proper maintenance of all equipment. Heavy equipment used during construction would generate groundborne noise and vibration, but these activities would be limited in duration and consistent with other standard construction activities. Following construction, future Responses to Comments Page 6 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
development uses would not result in a significantly noticeable increase over existing vehicle noise in the area. The implementation of NOI-1 and NOI-2 would result in potential noise impacts being reduced to less than significant. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 2.8
The commenter states that the IS/MND fails to adequately assess the Project's operational noise impacts.
The project shall comply with the City's interior and exterior noise standards as required by the City of Santa Maria General Plan Noise Element Table N-4. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 2.9
The commenter opines there is fair argument that the Project may have a significant noise impact and that an EIR should be required.
For the reasons listed in Response 2.7-2.8 above no fair argument exists for significant impacts related to noise because Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-2 would lessen impacts to an insignificant level. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 2.10
The commenter opines there is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on Traffic and Transportation and that an EIR should be required.
As discussed in traffic and circulation study which considered cumulative impacts, "Hotel developments are unique in that the majority of trips are generated by hotel guests from outside the community coming to visit the area for work and leisure purposes. These work and leisure trips would occur without the development of the hotel since the destination (Santa Maria) is the trip attractor not the hotel. The hotel is in effect capturing those work and leisure trips by providing lodging for travelers. This type of land use is not specifically identified in the State or Caltrans guidelines which address per capita home base (residential) and employee work base (office) trips.".
The City completed equivalent local -serving retail site estimate based upon the screening criteria in the City's Environmental Procedures that exempts local retail of less than 50,000 square feet. The equivalent analysis demonstrated that the hotel project would only generate 40% of the total trips generated from a 50,000 square foot retail center.
The City had the traffic and circulation study peer reviewed by DKS Associates. The review supported the determinations in the traffic and circulation study. No fair argument exists for significant impacts related to traffic and transportation and no EIR shall be required for the project. The complete peer reviewed document is attached to this document (Attachment 2 - December 22, 2023, DKS Peer Review Traffic and Circulation Study).
Responses to Comments Page 7 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
Response 2.11
The commenter opines that the City of Santa Maria should prepare an EIR for the project.
As discussed in the Draft IS-MND, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft IS-MND. As demonstrated throughout the Draft IS-MND and in the responses above, no fair argument based on substantial evidence has been raised that the proposed project would result in a significant environmental impact or that mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS-MND would not reduce identified potential environmental impacts below applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, preparation of an EIR is not required.
Letter 3
This comment letter was received from the office of Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters on November 15, 2023 outside the 30 -day public review period, and following completion of the Draft IS-MND. Many of the comments are duplications from the October 31, 2023 comment letter. Staff has responded to each comment regardless of duplications.
COMMENTER: Mitchell M. Tsai on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
DATE: November 15, 2023
Response 3.1
The commenter provides a summary of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (WSRCC) and summarizes community benefits of local hiring practices.
The commenter suggests that the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality, and transportation impacts. The commenter also asserts that all other comments on the environmental review are incorporated by reference.
Comments related to skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements do not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND and no revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary. However, they will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Response 3.2
The commenter suggests the adoption of additional mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks related to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases as a result of project construction activities.
Federal and state agencies have agency rules and regulations for public safety related to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases among workers, including construction workers. The general contractor responsible for the development of the project would be required to comply with applicable health and safety regulations as set by applicable agencies, including the County, City, and State. It is the responsibility of Responses to Comments Page 8 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
the general contractor to implement the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards and regulations as related to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases throughout the duration of construction. It is also the responsibility of the general contractor's safety personnel and its subcontractors' safety personnel to implement health and safety regulations on the construction site for the duration of construction activities. The general contractor and its subcontractors would be required to comply with all applicable COVID-19 and other infectious diseases safety guidelines. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that there would be no significant impact to workers related to COVID-19 and other infectious disease with implementation and compliance of applicable federal, state, and OSHA required public health requirements. Therefore, preparation of an additional mitigation measure related to COVID-19 would not be required. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.3
The commenter opines that the project would be approved in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and describes the requirements of an EIR.
As described in the Draft IS-MND, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft IS-MND. As discussed throughout the Draft IS-MND and this Response to Comments document, a fair argument based on substantial evidence has not been raised that the project would result in a new significant impact or that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS-MND would not reduce identified potential environmental impacts below applicable thresholds of significance (also refer to Responses 3.4 through 3.15 for discussion of specific environmental effects and mitigation measures raised by the commenter). Therefore, preparation of an EIR for the proposed project would not be required. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.4
The commenter opines there is fair argument that the Project may have a significant biological resources impact and that an EIR should be prepared for the project.
The Draft IS-MND included literature review of the California Natural Diversity Database, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation, National Wetlands Inventory and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. A total of 20 special -status animal species have been documented in the Santa Maria Quadrangle. No special -status plant species were documented on the project site The mostly developed site area exhibits little to no habitat for sensitive species because the property is infill located in an urbanized area of Santa Maria that is surrounded by hotel and industrial development as well as a flood control channel maintained by the County of Santa Barbara. The project site is sparsely vegetated and has been regularly cleared of weeds under Title 5 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code. The project site is graded and regularly cleared of vegetation.
Responses to Comments Page 9 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
The project site does not contain riparian habitat, state or federally protected wetlands, or any other sensitive natural community. The project area does not support any surface water resources, migratory corridors, or nursery sites. There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. Four trees are present within the project site and would be removed and replaced with thirty-six trees as part of the proposed project.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 considers the presence of migratory birds and includes measures to avoid impacting those species. Therefore, no fair argument exists for significant impacts related to biological resources because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would lessen impacts to an insignificant level. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.5
The commenter states that Draft IS-MND Mitigation Measures BIO-1: Pre - construction Nesting Bird Surveys be revised to specify details of needed mitigation plans and performance standards.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required to address potential impacts to nesting bird species and migratory birds during construction activities. The mitigation provides a time frame (between September 1 and February 1) for which the mitigation would apply and specific parameters/performance standards for how to mitigate including implementation of buffer zones and monitoring until the young are no longer reliant on the nest site as determined by the City -approved biologist. Surveys, if necessary, would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. If project construction activities would occur during the specified time frame identified in the measure, then a biologist would be contracted to perform this work. It is not appropriate at this time in the development process to obtain a qualified biologist, as the actual dates of construction are not able to be identified prior to approval of the project. It would be speculative to name a biologist for this work when it is unknown if the work will be required. Further, the pre -construction nesting bird survey would be required pursuant to regulatory requirements for specific species for the completion of such report, if necessary.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 includes appropriately detailed mitigation plans and performance standards for reducing potential environmental impacts below applicable thresholds of significance, no revisions to the Draft IS-MND are required in response to this comment.
Response 3.6
The commenter mentions various other nearby sensitive receptors such as the adjacent hotels and the Gateway Business Center.
The following revision has been made to the Noise Section of the Draft IS-MND:
Responses to Comments Page 10 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include multiple hotels across the street from the project site as well as .he single-family residences located to the south of the project approximately 700 feet away.
Response 3.7
The commenter opines that mitigation measures NOl-1 and NO1-2 are insufficient because merely relying on the Project's compliance with City noise requirements during periods of the day is insufficient to mitigate the Project's noise impacts to a level of insignificance. The IS/MND fails to show how the implementation of this measure will actually mitigate the noise impacts.
Proposed construction activities onsite and associated construction -related noise would be temporary and would observe the City's construction work hours, implementation of noise control for stationary equipment and proper maintenance of all equipment. Heavy equipment used during construction would generate groundborne noise and vibration, but these activities would be limited in duration and consistent with other standard construction activities. Following construction, future development uses would not result in a significantly noticeable increase over existing vehicle noise in the area. The implementation of NOI-1 and NOI-2 would result in potential noise impacts being reduced to less than significant. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.8
The commenter states that the 1S/MND fails to adequately assess the Project's operational noise impacts.
The project shall comply with the City's interior and exterior noise standards as required by the City of Santa Maria General Plan Noise Element Table N-4. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.9
The commenter opines that the hotel is not the only development at the project site.
The project being considered is summarized accurately in the project description. If additional development is proposed by the applicant at a future date, the new proposal would require updated environmental review. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.10
The commenter opines that increased traffic in the area and the associated traffic noise impacts from the hotel operation were not considered.
The project site is adjacent to the Broadway commercial corridor and Highway 101.
Both road networks are major traffic areas that provide constant vehicle flow for commuters, locals and tourists. The baseline noise level from traffic would not be noticeably increased by the traffic generated by the project. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.11
Responses to Comments Page 11 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
The commenter opines there is fair argument that the Project may have a significant noise impact and that an EIR should be required.
For the reasons listed in Response 3.6-3.10 above no fair argument exists for significant impacts related to noise because Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-2 would lessen impacts to an insignificant level. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
Response 3.12
The commenter opines there is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on Traffic and Transportation.
As discussed in traffic and circulation study which considered cumulative impacts, "Hotel developments are unique in that the majority of trips are generated by hotel guests from outside the community coming to visit the area for work and leisure purposes. These work and leisure trips would occur without the development of the hotel since the destination (Santa Maria) is the trip attractor not the hotel. The hotel is in effect capturing those work and leisure trips by providing lodging for travelers. This type of land use is not specifically identified in the State or Caltrans guidelines which address per capita home base (residential) and employee work base (office) trips.".
The City completed equivalent local -serving retail site estimate based upon the screening criteria in the City's Environmental Procedures that exempts local retail of less than 50,000 square feet. The equivalent analysis demonstrated that the hotel project would only generate 40% of the total trips generated from a 50,000 square foot retail center.
The City had the traffic and circulation study peer reviewed by DKS Associates on December 22, 2023. The review supported the determinations in the traffic and circulation study. No fair argument exists for significant impacts related to traffic and transportation and no EIR shall be required for the project. Please see the attached peer review document for further information.
Response 3.13
The commentor opines that there is a fair argument that the project may have significant hazards impacts.
Staff erroneously left the "not" listed in the revision to the sentence below which unfortunately misconstrued the project site to appear to have an abandoned oil well head.
The following revision has been made to the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section of the Draft IS-MND:
Lastly, the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department does not list this site as a location of an abandoned oil well head associated with historical oil field operations.
The project site does not contain a hazardous waste disposal facility, an underground storage tank, a contaminated drinking water well or a solid waste facility from which Responses to Comments Page 12 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
there is known migration of hazardous waste. The proposed zoning and development of the hotel project would not create any conditions that would lead to the project location being listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No further revisions to the Draft IS-MND beyond the edit to the sentence above are necessary.
Response 3.14
The commenter opines that there is a fair argument that the project may have significant cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, energy, hazards and water impacts.
A Traffic and Circulation Study was completed on December 8, 2021 by Associated Transportation Engineers which considered the cumulative impacts of the project and determined that no significant impacts to area intersections would occur. General statements related to cumulative traffic impacts leading to foreseeable air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are not backed by evidence in the commentors letter. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
The project site is adjacent to the Broadway commercial corridor and Highway 101.
Both road networks are major traffic areas that provide constant vehicle flow for commuters, locals and tourists. The baseline noise level from traffic would not be noticeably increased by the traffic generated by the project. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent version of which are referred to as the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2023). Energy and water impacts would be reduced to insignificant levels from compliance with the CBC. No revisions to the Draft IS-MND are necessary.
The project site does not contain a hazardous waste disposal facility, an underground storage tank, a contaminated drinking water well or a solid waste facility from which there is known migration of hazardous waste. The proposed zoning and development of the hotel project would not create any conditions that would lead to the project location being listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Historic oil field production is generally South of Stowell Road which is approximately 2.75 miles to south of the project site. No revisions to the Draft IS- MND are necessary.
Response 3.15
The commenter opines that the City of Santa Maria should prepare an EIR for the project.
As discussed in the Draft IS-MND, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft IS-MND. As demonstrated throughout the Draft IS-MND and in the responses Responses to Comments Page 13 of 14
City of Santa Maria
Holiday Inn Express
above, no fair argument based on substantial evidence has been raised that the proposed project would result in a significant environmental impact or that mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS-MND would not reduce identified potential environmental impacts below applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, preparation of an EIR is not required.
Attachment 1 — Public Comment Letters
Attachment 2 — December 22, 2023, DKS Peer Review Traffic and Circulation Study Responses to Comments Page 14 of 14
1.1 a pcd air pollution control district
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
October 31, 2023
Cody Graybehl
City of Santa Maria
Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street, #101
Santa Maria, California 93458
Letter 1
Attachment 1
Sent Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holiday Inn Express, PD2022-0001, GPZ2022-0001 Dear Cody Graybehl:
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the referenced project, which consists of the construction of a four- story hotel building with 93 rooms and associated site improvements including 103 parking spaces, landscaping, and stormwater retention facilities on a currently vacant lot. A total of approximately 55,000 square feet of floor area would be established at the site. The project is expected to generate 743 average daily trips and employ 12 workers. The current land use designation would be changed from Heavy Commercial Manufacturing (HCM) to Community Commercial (CC) and the current zoning from Planned Development/Commercial Manufacturing (PD/CM) to PD/General Commercial (C-2). The subject property, two parcels totaling 2.13 acres and identified in the Assessor Parcel Map Book as APNs 128-003-047 and -048, is located on Roemer Court in the City of Santa Maria.
The District has the following comments on the Draft MND:
1. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Discrepancy: The criteria pollutant emissions in Table 1:
Operational Emissions Summary of the Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Emissions Analysis (Appendix A) do not seem to correspond with the emission results presented in Table 7 Estimated Total Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions and Table 8 Estimated Project Operational Motor Vehicle Trip Criteria Pollutant Emissions on page 19 of the Environmental Checklist. Please explain or correct the discrepancy.
2. Greenhouse Gas Threshold Discussion: The discussion in the Methodology subsection of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section on page 34 of the Environmental Checklist states that "the
1.2 purpose of this analysis is to estimate greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted by the proposed project and compare the estimate to the SBCAPCD greenhouse gas regulations." Please revise the discussion to reflect that the regulations discussed in this section, and in particular the greenhouse gas threshold used for the analysis are not those of the District. The District does not have a board -adopted greenhouse gas threshold for commercial development projects.
3. Mobile Trip Emissions: The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for the project
1.3 (Appendix A) does not accurately model mobile trips for the proposed project. The analysis inappropriately excludes guest trips from the mobile trip emissions. The analysis is currently Aeron Arlin Genet, Air Pollution Control Officer
(805) 979-8050
9 260 N. San Antonio Rd., Ste. A Santa Barbara, CA 93110 ourair.org
t @OurAirSBC
District Comments on the Draft MND for the Holiday Inn Express, PD2022-0001, GPZ2022-00001 October 31, 2023