Santa Maria City Council
March 5, 2024

The City's Approval of the Project:

On May 22, 2017, the City issue a notice of preparation for the Project. On September 20, 2018, the City released a 600-page Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Project. (AR 4086-4087, 1321.) The City issued the Final EIR3 on April 12, 2019. (AR 4087.) The City conducted a public hearing on the EIR in May 2019. (AR 5-156, 4410-11.) Thereafter, on June 3, 2019, the City's Advisory Agency, certified the EIR, adopted the CEQA findings and a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (MMRP}, and approved the Project.4 (AR 5-156, 4410-11.) Two entities appealed the Advisory Agency's decision on June 13, 2019.5 (AR 6715, 6869.) The appeals raised concerns about the Project's construction noise and air quality impacts. (AR 3574-77, 6869-80.} The City Planning Commission (CPC) heard and denied the appeals on August 26, 2019. The CPC certified the EIR and affirmed the Advisory Agency's Project approval. (AR 157-312, 4412-4420, 4425-4427, 4429-4531.)
On September 5, 2019, Petitioner appealed the CPC's decision. (AR 8457-8464.) On October 29, 2019, after holding another public hearing, the City's Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the full City Council deny the appeals and approve the Project. (AR 440-445, 4543-4547, 4548- 4602.) At a public meeting on November 12, 2019, the City Council voted unanimously to deny the appeals and approve the Project. (AR 709-710, 4603-4623.)
The writ petition ensued.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA during the course of its legislative or quasilegislative actions, the trial court's inquiry during a mandamus proceeding" 'shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion,' " which is established " 'if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.' " (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426 [citing Pub. Resources Code§ 21168.5).) "In evaluating an EIR for CEQA compliance, ... a reviewing court must adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts." (Id. at 435.)
3 The court refers to the Final EIR herein as the EIR. The court designates any specific references to the Draft EIR as DEIR herein.
4 The Advisory Agency also approved the tract map on June 3, 2019. (AR 4299.) The City issued three errata to the EIR during the administrative review process: Erratum No. 1 on July 26, 2019; Erratum No. 2 on August 7, 2019; and Erratum No. 3 on October 18, 2019. (AR 4326.) 5 American Florists Exchange, Ltd. and the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development appealed the Advisory Agency's decision.

CEQA requires an EIR to "be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (Guidelines6 § 15151; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516.) "An EIR's designation of a particular environmental effect as 'significant' does not excuse the El R's failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect." (Id. at 514.) "[TI here must be a disclosure of the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evidence to action.' " (laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404.) "[A] conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence." (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 514.) If the deficiencies in an EIR preclude "informed decisionmaking and public participation, the goals of CEQA are thwarted and a prejudicial abuse of discretion has occurred." (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 128.)
"Where the alleged defect is that the agency has failed to proceed in the r:nanner required by law, the court determines de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated requirements." ( Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 845.) With respect to "alt substantial evidence challenges, an appellant challenging an EIR for insufficient evidence must lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking. Failure to do so is fatal. A reviewing court will not independently review the record to make up for appellant's failure to carry his burden." (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 cal.App.4th 1261, 1266.) Moreover, "the reviewing court 'may not set aside an agency's approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,' for, on factual questions, our task 'is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.' " (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 435.)
"Regardless of what is alleged, an EIR approved by a governmental agency is presumed legally adequate, and the party challenging the EIR has the burden of showing otherwise." (Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at 846.) Ill
Ill
6 The CEQA Guidelines are found at Title 14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000 et seq.

ANALYSIS
Petitioner contends the EIR analysis of the Project's environmental impacts is flawed as to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air quality and noise. The court addresses the claims in turn.

GHG Impacts:

Petitioner claims the City's analysis under the "first significance threshold"7 does not comply with CEQA. Petitioner's arguments arise in three general categories that are all related in some way to the City's selection of a significance threshold for GHG impacts. First, Petitioner contends the EIR's GHG analysis is inaccurate, confusing and misleading. Second, Petitioner asserts the City selected an inappropriate significance threshold. Third, Petitioner argues the EIR fails as an informal document for decisionmakers and informed public participation because it omits any analysis of Senate Bill (SB) 32 codified at Health and Safety Code section 38566.

Guidelines section 15064.4, subdivision (a) provides: "A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards." Thus, under the Guidelines, the City had the option of selecting a quantitative or qualitative significance threshold for GHG emissions "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." (Guidelines§ 15064, subd. (b).) Further, "California's CEQA Guidelines ... recognize that an agency's adoption of a threshold of significance requires an exercise of reasoned judgment." (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 206.) A city's choice of a significance threshold "will be upheld if founded on substantial evidence." (Ibid.) First, Petitioner argues the City's "discussion of the GHG significance thresholds violates CEQA" because "it is inaccurate and confusing." (Reply 5:33 [emphasis added].) The court disagrees. A reasonable reading of the EIR and the City's selection of a significance threshold does not support Petitioner's claim.

The City explained because the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the City "have yet to adopt project-level significance thresholds for GHG emissions that would be applicable to the Project," the City obtained its primary direction for GHG emissions analysis from the Guidelines. (AR 917.) The City reported a project could have a significant environmental impact if the project generated GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, or if the project would conflict with "an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions" of GHG. (AR 14:917.) After a straight-forward plain language discussion in plain in 7 Petitioner contends the City has relied upon two significance thresholds for GHG emissions. As discussed herein, the court disagrees. The EIR provides a single threshold of significance for GHG emissions.

the EIR concerning the selection of significance thresholds, the City reported "the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment if it is found to be consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions." (AR 920.) The City thereafter set forth the applicable plans and policies for which it considered consistency in the context of GHG emissions. (AR 14:920.) The EIR methodically discusses the Project and the applicable plans and policies. Petitioner has not demonstrated the EIR's significance threshold discussion would mislead or confuse decisionmakers or public participants.

Second, without expressly so stating, much of Petitioner's argument related to GHG emissions theorizes the City abused its discretion in deciding not to use a quantitative threshold of significance for the Project. Petitioner contends the SCAQMD quantitative thresholds of significance should have been used for the Project as they are "the most appropriate ... to apply because the Project is a mixed-use project." (Opening Brief 14:17-18.) Petitioner thus contends the City engaged in "threshold shopping" for the Project. Petitioner speculates the City uses the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance "to analyze projects where emissions are below the threshold." (Opening Brief 14:32-35.) Petitioner cites three such projects in the City's downtown area where the City used SCAQMD's thresholds of significance to find a project's GHG emissions had less than significant impacts. (AR 6495-6496.) The City explained it elected not to rely on SCAQMD's 2008 draft guidance (as revised in 2010) because neither the City nor SCAQMD "has adopted numeric thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions for land use development projects (e.g., residential/commercial projects) such as the Project." (AR 2820.) The City elaborated:

As further explained in the Draft EIR, in 2008, the SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. In December 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted interim GHG significance thresholds for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. That threshold uses a tiered approach to determine a project's significance, with 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) per year as a screening numerical threshold for stationary sources. In September 2010, the Working Group released additional revisions that recommended a screening threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed use projects. The SCAQMD has not since adopted those thresholds, nor has the SCAQMD provided a timeline for formal consideration of those thresholds.

In the meantime, the thresholds in the SCAQMD's guidance document are used as a non-binding guide. A lead agency is not required under CEQA to rely on draft regulatory standards that have not been adopted as significance thresholds. (AR 2820-2821.)

While the City may have chosen to use the SCAQMD's guidance as thresholds of significance (as it apparently has done with at least three other projects) in the past, the City was not required to do so. (Guidelines§ 15064.7, subd. (c). See also Guidelines§ 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).) The Guidelines do "not mandate the use of absolute numerical thresholds to measure the significance of greenhouse gas emissions." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 221.) Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating the City's selection of the significance threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

Third, Petitioner contends the EIR's GHG emissions analysis is inconsistent with SB 32. That is, Petitioner attacks the City's finding the Project is "consisten[t] with the policies in SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15, which includes the GHG reduction goals codified in SB 32." (Opposition Brief 17:2-3.) Petitioner contends "[t]he EIR includes compliance with Executive Order B-30-15 on the list of measures it must comply with for the Project's GHG emissions to be considered insignificant ... and the Project does not comply with that executive order." (Reply 8:22-25.) Petitioner is correct to the extent there is no substantial evidence to support the City's position on Executive Order (EO) B-30-15.

As an initial matter, the City and Flower Growers argue Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the issue of "CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides strategies to achieve the 2040 GHG emission goals set in SB 32." (Opposition Brief 17:12-14.) The court disagrees. The broader issue of overall compliance with SB 32-however that might be achieved-was squarely presented to the City during the administrative proceedings.

SWAPE8 specifically raised the issue of SB 32 in its written comments to the DEIR. (AR 2900, 2922.) SWAPE wrote:

AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

However, in September 2016, prior to the release of the IS/MND, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32, enacting Health and Safety Code § 38566. [] This statue ("SB 32") requires California to achieve a new, more aggressive 40% reduction in GHG emissions over the 1990 levels by 2030. 'This 40 percent reduction is widely acknowledged as a necessary interim target to ensure that California meets its longer-range goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.' Therefore, by failing to demonstrate consistency with the reduction targets set forth by SB 32, the Project may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As a result, the Project may have a potentially significant impact that was not previously addressed in the DEIR, and as such, a revised EIR should be prepared. (AR 2922.)
8 SWAPE is an acronym for Soil Water Air Protection Enterprises. SWAPE provides technical consultation, data analysis, and litigation support for the environment. (AR 2927.)

SWAPE also advised the City-with expert opinion-"to reach the statewide goal of 259 MTCOie, California would have to reduce its emissions by 49 percent below the 'business-asusual' levels. This reduction target indicates that compliance with these more aggressive reduction goals, beyond what is mandated by AB 32, will be necessary." {AR 2923.) As acknowledged by the City and Flower Growers, the legislature codified EO B-30-15 at SB 32. (Opposition Brief 17:3.} Executed by Governor Brown on April 29, 2015, two years before the notice of preparation, EO B-30-15 provides in part:
"A new interim statewide greenhouse emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."
SB 32, codified at Health and Safety Code section 38566, effective January 1, 2017 (prior to the City's notice of preparation) provides:
"In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030."
The EIR reports the Project's GHG emissions are "consistent"9 with EO B-30-15. (AR 926.) The EIR's discussion of EO B-30-15 in its "Consistency Analysis" reports the order's target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (AR 926-927.) In fact, the EIR suggests the Project is actually consistent and compliant with EO B-30-15: "As such, given the reasonably anticipated decline in Project emissions once fully constructed and operational, the Project is consistent with the Executive Order's horizon-year goal."10 (AR 926.) The issue raised by Petitioner is whether there is substantial evidence for the EIR's claim to decisionmakers and public participants the Project does not conflict with E0 B-30-15-"an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions" of GHG. (AR 14:917.) The City's position of consistency with EO B-30-15 requires substantial evidence.
9 "Consistent" means "marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity" and "marked by agreement." (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistent.) 10The EIR's use of a singular possessive form as opposed to a plural possessive form makes the analysis where the EIR discusses two executive orders unclear. In any event, the statement implies quantitative compliance with required GHG emission reductions by 2030. The City's findings, however, make clear the City intended the statement to apply to both executive orders. (AR 235.)

Certainly, the EIR acknowledges a 2030 GHG emissions target exists under the law; in its Consistency Analysis, however, the EIR provides no information about that target or how the Project's GHG emissions are consistent with it. The EIR's claim "the Project's post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets and Executive Order ... B-30-15" appears to be unsupported by substantial evidence. (AR 927.)
Moreover, the EIR reports "[m]any of the emission reduction strategies recommended by CARB would serve to reduce the Project's post-2020 emissions level to the extent applicable by law .... " (AR 927 [emphasis added].) The EIR, however, provides no analysis to support the claim the Project's GHG emissions comply with Health and Safety Code section 38566. That is, "applicable law."11 In fact, the only evidence on the issue suggests otherwise. (AR 2923 [49 percent reduction required for compliance versus Project's 33 percent reduction].) During argument the Flower Growers directed the court to evidence the City could have considered to find the Project is consistent with EO B-30-15. The evidence, however, is not substantial evidence supporting the claim the Project's post-2020 emissions will be reduced to the level required by EO B-30-15 as reported in the EIR.

For example, the EIR's discussion of EO B-30-15 explains "a statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030." (AR 902.) Citing a "recent study," the EIR reports "the state's existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the state to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (consistent with Executive Order B-30- 15), and to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050." (AR 903.) While the City cited the study by footnote, the study did not address the Project and its GHG emissions.12 Thus, the discussion and study are not substantial evidence of the Project's compliance with EO B-30-15.

In addition, the Project's reduction in GHG emissions related to design features (AR 924-925) does not address compliance with EO B-30-15. The order sets forth a quantitative standard. The EIR's general reference to design features and GHG does not inform on consistency with that quantitative standard.
11 The City found, "As such, the Project's post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets and Executive Order S-3-05 and B-30-

15." (AR 235 [emphasis added].) The statement is misleading because it implies the Project meets EO 8-30-lS's emissions target when there is no substantial evidence to support the City's position.
12 The court does not have access to the study cited in the footnote. The El R's narrative suggests the study concerned "various combinations of policies" to assist emission levels to "remain very low through 2050 .•.. " (AR 903.) In the unlikely event the general study addressed the Project, the court notes "a report 'buried in an appendix,' is not a substitute for 'a good faith reasoned analysis .... '" (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 941 [citation omitted].)

The EIR's discussion of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) does address GHG emission reductions. (AR 911, 930-931.) The discussion, however, does not inform on the Project's consistency with EO B-30-15.

Finally, relying on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, the City argues it had no obligation to consider EO B-30-15. In Cleveland National Forest Foundation, the petitioners argued the agency "should have evaluated the plan's impacts against an executive order signed" by the governor. (Id. at 503.) The Supreme Court disagreed. The agency in Cleveland National Forest Foundation, however, did not adopt a significance threshold of express consistency with an executive order as the City did here. (See id. at 507 [three measures of significance).) That is, the agency in Cleveland National Forest Foundation did not represent the project was consistent with a particular executive order and establish its significance threshold in p~rt on such consistency.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds the EIR's claim of consistency with EO B-30-15 and the policies therein is not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the EIR's conclusions that GHG emissions do not exceed the City's chosen significance threshold is unsupported. The City abused its discretion in finding GHG emissions would not have a substantial environmental impact. "[A] conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence." (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 514.) Petitioner is entitled to relief based on the EIR's incomplete discussion of GHG emission impacts.13 Air Quality Impacts:

The EIR reports the Project's construction emissions would cause significant regional and local air quality impacts based on nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). (AR 843.) Thus, the Project required mitigation measures for air quality impacts. (AR 843.) Petitioner contends the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate construction-related impacts on air quality.
13 During argument, the parties argued about the meaning of Table 4.F-5. (AR 922.) The City contended the table calculations demonstrated compliance with EO B-30-15 while Petitioner argued it did not. The narrative accompanying the table indicates the Project is consistent with the 2014 Revised AB 32 Scoping Plan because of a reduction target of 15.3 percent. There is no discussion of EO B-30-15. Whether the table's information is consistent with EO 8-3-15-and the court could not determine one way or the other even after the aid of argument-is unclear and does not inform decisionmakers or public participation.

1. Mitigation Measure (MM) C-1
MM C-1 requires "(a]II off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower" satisfy United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Tier 4 emissions standards to reduce NOx and PM2.5 emissions at the Project Site." (AR 849.) The EIR states "[a]ny emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations." (AR 849.)
"For projects for which an EIR has been prepared, where substantial evidence supports the approving agency's conclusion that mitigation measures will be effective, courts will uphold such measures against attacks based on their alleged inadequacy." (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027.) A reviewing court, however, will not defer to the agency if there is no substantial evidence in the record showing the mitigation measure is feasible and effective, or if the feasibility or effectiveness of the mitigation measure "def[ies] common sense." (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116-1117.) Petitioner contends MM C-1 is both ineffective and infeasible.

The parties' argument here centers on the meaning of Tier 4 standards for the construction equipment to be used for the Project. Petitioner contends there are two Tier 4 standards-an interim standard and a final standard.14 Petitioner reports the CalEEMod calculations are based on a Tier 4 final standard-an assumption all construction equipment used for the Project with a horsepower greater than 50 comply Tier 4 final standards. (AR 2908 [citing Appendix E-1]; see also AR 1475-1478, 1507-1510, 1544-1547.) Therefore, to the extent MM C-1 permits the Flower Growers to use equipment with a Tier 4 interim standard, the required mitigation will not be achieved. That is, the CalEEMod calculation on which the effectiveness of MM C-1 is based assumes a Tier 4 final standard for all construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower.

MM C-1, however, does not require all equipment to be Tier 4 final compliant.

The City dismisses Petitioner's claim as nothing more than a "red herring." (Opposition 21:18.) The City reasons Tier 4 "interim" standards were only in effect for a short period of time for certain manufacturers. The interim period ended in 2018 well before the City issued the EIR in 2019. (AR 2803, 4303-4304.) The EIR explains:
"Tier 4 engines have been phased in nationwide since 2008 for all engine types. While some manufacturers were given limited flexibilitY. to phase in compliant engines under the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM), this provided up 14 There seems to be no dispute Tier 4 final standards are more stringent (allow less emissions) than Tier 4 interim standards. (AR 2909, 2803.)

to seven years of additional time to offer such equipment. For engines less than 56 horsepower (hp), this TPEM period ended at the end of 2014. Engines between 56- 130 hp had until the end of 2018, while larger engines of 130 hp or more ended at the end of 2017. As a result, Tier 4 equipment is commercially available from all manufacturers, especially for common types of equipment to be used during the construction phases for this Project." (AR 2803 [emphasis added].) The City sidesteps and avoids the issue. (See AR 6621-6622.) MM C-1 relies on Tier 4 equipment. CalEEMod calculations-demonstrating effective mitigation-are based on Tier 4 final standards for construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower. The City does not require, however, that all equipment exceeding SO horsepower used for construction have been manufactured in 2019 and later-that is, when Tier 4 final standards were required. Thus, MM C-1 permits, for example, construction equipment with 130 horsepower manufactured in 2018 under the Tier 4 interim standard to be used on the Project. To the extent the City permits such equipment to be used, it would be inconsistent with CalEEMod calculations and undermine the mitigation.

During argument, the City suggested its interpretation of MM C-1 requires equipment for the Project to use Tier 4 final standards. The City contends its CalEEMod calculations support its intent. That is, if the City did not intend for all equipment to meet such standards it would not have used such a setting in its CalEEMod calculations. 15 The City also noted the Flower Growers concede MM C-1 requires Tier 4 final standard engines and so advised the City: "It should be noted that the measure refers to the use of Tier 4-certified engines, not the less effective Tier 4-interim certified engines." (AR 10136.)
The MMRP will require compliance with Tier 4 final standards for MM C-1. Whether the Project is complying with MM C-1 will not turn on the good faith of an "on-the-hood-of-a-truck" analysis of the mitigation measure by a contractor, as suggested by Petitioner during argument.

Instead, the MMRP requires:
"[S]pecifically during the construction phase and prior to the issuance of building permits, the [Flower Growers] shall retain an independent Construction Monitor (either via the City or through a third-party consultant), approved by the City of 15 Additionally, the City differentiated between Tier 4 standards (which the City considers final standards) and Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM) standards in the EIR.

Thus, the City's language in MM C-1 would not support two Tier 4 standards, final and interim.

Under the City's view, there is a Tier 4 standard and a TPEM standard. If the City had intended to include an "interim" Tier 4 standard in the MM, it would have used TPEM. In any event, this distinction provides additional support to the City's intent and the enforceable performance standard used for the MM.

Los Angeles Department of City Planning, who shall be responsible for monitoring implementation of Project design features and mitigation measures during construction activities consistent with the monitoring phase and frequency set forth in this [MMRP)." (AR 143.)
Thus, while MM C-1 could have been more precise, the City's intent is clear, and the MM contains a specific performance standard. Moreover, the Flower Growers have acknowledged MM C-1 requires construction equipment with Tier 4 final standards (or its equivalent) be used for the Project. The MMRP will "ensure compliance during project implementation." (Pub.

Resources Code § 21081.6, subd. (a).)
While Petitioner contends the City uses a performance standard addressing only particulate but not NOx emissions (Opening Brief 18:14-19}, the court is unpersuaded. MM C-1 requires any construction equipment meet both standards-Tier 4 final and a Level 3 diesel emission control strategy. (AR 849 ["In addition"].)
Based on the foregoing, the court finds the City's determination MM C-1 will be effective at mitigating air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level during construction is supported by substantial evidence.
a. Feasibility and Enforceability of MM C-1
According to Petitioner, MM C-1 "does not provide either feasible or enforceable means to ensure significant air quality impacts will be avoided." (Opening Brief 19:5-6.) Petitioner argues MM C-1 is inadequate to ensure avoidance of significant impacts to the air quality "because of practical obstacles in obtaining the required technology." (Opening Brief 19:10-11.) Petitioner reports while Tier 4 standards have been phased in for construction equipment manufactured since 2008 (Tier 4 interim) and 2014 (Tier 4 Final), "a large portion of the construction equipment currently in use was manufactured to lower standards." (Opening Brief 19:16-17 [citing AR 2910-2911).)16 Petitioner contends the City's claim Tier 4 standards construction equipment is readily available is unsupported by substantial evidence. Thus, Petitioner claims the EIR's conclusion supporting feasibility-the availability of equipmentfails.

Petitioner's argument alleging a lack of appropriate construction equipment is based on speculation. Petitioner's reliance on a seven-year-old report from 2014-just after Tier 4 final 16 "In 2014, 25% of all offroad equipment in the state of California were equipped with Tier 2 engines, approximately 12% were equipped with Tier 3 engines, approximately 18% were equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines, and only 4% were equipped with Tier 4 Final engines."

standards phased in-does not meet Petitioner's burden on the issue. The City's position "it is reasonable to conclude that the market has produced many more Tier 4-compliant engines" since 2014 is reasonable and appropriate given Petitioner's speculation. (Opposition 23:2-3.} This is especially true given the passage of time and such equipment being available from all manufacturers. (AR 2806.)
More importantly, if Flower Growers cannot secure specific Tier 4 equipment as required by MM C-1, Flower Growers will be required to "work with the City's Building and Safety Department on equivalent alternatives that minimize tailpipe emissions from off-road equipment." (AR 2803.) The term "equivalent" means the Flower Growers must demonstrate the proffered alternative "meets or exceeds" Tier 4 standards thereby meeting necessary emission reductions in NOx and PM2.5. (AR 4303-4304.)
.Based on the speculative nature of Petitioner's claim concerning feasibility, the court finds Petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating the City abused its discretion when it found MM C-1 is feasible.17

2. Air Quality Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Petitioner takes issue with the City's selection and identification of sensitive receptors and their proximity to the Project. The flaw, according to Petitioner, undermines the El R's air quality analysis.

Petitioner notes the EIR identifies the "nearest" sensitive receptors at distances of 220 (school}, 240 (apartment building), 440 (apartment building) and 700 (apartment building) feet from the Project. (AR 836.) Petitioner reports there is an apartment building within 55 feet of the Project and another closer than 240 feet. (AR 778, 3173, 6874-6875.) Petitioner argues that these omissions are misleading by creating the impression for decisionmakers and the participating public there are few sensitive uses in close proximity to the Project.18 To the extent selection of a group of sensitive receptors is a methodology issue, the City is entitled to deference on its methodology.19 Thus, the decision is subject to substantial evidence review. (City of long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 898.) 17 The court's finding MM C-1 is effective sufficiently responds to Petitioner's claim concerning enforceability.
18 Additionally, Petitioner argues the El R's air quality impacts on sensitive receptors is inadequate because it relies on the MM C-1 to render the impact less than significant. Of course, the court's earlier analysis of MM C-1 would be equally applicable here. 19 That said, the court is not persuaded the issue is, in fact, a methodology issue.

The City's use of SCAQMD guidance on the issue does not actually support selection issues. That is, nothing in the SCAQMD guidance instructs on selection of sensitive receptors over others. (AR 832-848, 845.) Thus, the SCAQMD guidance is not substantial evidence.

In the EIR, the City "disclose[d] the location of a number of representative sensitive receptors near the Project Site" including residential and non-residential uses. (AR 7232.) The City's response to public comment is instructive:
"Almost all of the other residential uses identified by the commentor are at the same distance from the Project site as the Santee Court Apartments (i.e., the Santee Village Apartments) or even a further distance away from the Project site (i.e., the Garment Lofts are 40 feet further away than the Santee Court Apartments and the Santee Village Lofts are 60 feet further away than the Santee Court Apartments). Moreover, compliance with SCAQMD's thresholds of significance will avoid any significant impact to any of these sensitive receptors and the EIR demonstrates that mitigated construction emissions would be less than all the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. (Refer to Draft EIR, pages 4.C-19 through 23.) This conclusion would apply regardless of the location of any receptor pursuant to SCAQMD guidance." (AR 7232; see also AR 3570-3571.) The court finds Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a prejudicial abuse of discretion even assuming the City abused its discretion in its selection of sensitive receptors.

Petitioner has not suggested any legal requirement that every sensitive receptor within close proximity of a Project must be identified. "CEQA requires only that the agency 'use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can' (Guidelines, § 15144), and that the EIR display 'adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure' (Guidelines, § 15151)." (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 253.)
Further, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the City sampling is misleading-other than to the extent the City did not include every single sensitive receptor in close proximity to the Project.

The City's expert concluded the Project would avoid significant impacts to all receptors in the vicinity because the Project's mitigated construction emissions will fall below SCAQMD's thresholds measured at the source of the emissions. (AR 3570-3571, 4068, 7232.) Petitioner does not suggest with evidence the El R's analysis and conclusions would be different with respect to the omitted sensitive receptors as opposed to the receptors the City considered and analyzed. Accordingly, Petitioner shows no prejudicial abuse of discretion.

3. Disclosure of Health Risks Associated with Air Quality Impacts Petitioner argues the Project fails to adequately discuss the connections between potential pollutant emissions and resulting human health impacts. Such analysis, Petitioner contends, is required by Guidelines section 15126.2, subdivision (a).

Petitioner asserts the EIR failed to discuss the health risks related to the estimated level of construction and operational emissions. (AR 827-850.) The EIR therefore does not comply with the Supreme Court's direction in Friant Ranch that a "[p]roject's health effects must be "clearly identified" and the discussion must include "relevant specifics" about the environmental changes attributable to the Project and their associated health outcomes." (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 518.)
Further, Petitioner argues the City's 2019 Health Risk Assessment (HRA) does not "fill the gap in the EIR's analysis." (Opening Brief 23:28.) The HRA contains no analysis of operational emissions and merely addresses construction-related emissions of diesel particulate matter. (AR 846.)
Under SCAQMD guidance, an HRA is recommended for "substantial sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) ... . 11 (AR 846.) The City
determined-and there is no challenge to the City's finding-the "Project would not result in any substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) during the construction or operations phase." (AR 846.)
The EIR explains:
"The Project would not result in any substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during the construction or operations phase. During the construction phase, the primary air quality impacts would be associated with the combustion of diesel fuels, which produce exhaust-related particulate matter that is considered a toxic air contaminant by CARB based on chronic exposure to these emissions. However, construction activities would not produce chronic, long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter. During long-term project operations, the Project does not include typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs such as industrial manufacturing processes and automotive repair facilities. As a result, the Project would not create substantial concentrations of TACs. In addition, the SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments be conducted for substantial sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions. The Project would not generate a substantial number of truck trips. Based on the limited activity of TAC sources, the Project would not

warrant the need for a health risk assessment associated with on-site activities.

Therefore, Project impacts related to TACs would be less than significant." (AR 846; see also AR 2964-66.)
Contrary to Petitioner's position, Friant Ranch, does not require more from the City. The Project does not exceed any SCAQMD significance threshold for air quality impacts or trigger any criteria requiring an HRA.

Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a prejudicial abuse of discretion based on a failure to adequately discuss the connections between potential pollutant emissions and resulting human health impacts.20
Noise Impacts:

Petitioner contends the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate construction-related environmental impacts as to noise.

1. Disclosure of Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Petitioner takes issue with the El R's purported failure to analyze the construction-noise impacts at the Textile Building Lofts, a location merely 55 feet from the Project. The EIR does not contain any noise analysis to any sensitive receptors at this location. In fact, the first discussion by the City about the noise impacts to the Textile Building Lofts is contained in Erratum No. 3. (AR 3173, 3342-3343.)
Petitioner contends the City's analysis is flawed. Petitioner believes the daytime ambient noise level of 64.8 dBA, based on measurements on Maple Avenue, is overstated for the Textile Building Lofts. (AR 3343.} The City's inaccurate 64.8 dBA daytime noise level assumption, according to Petitioner, led to a conclusion of only a 1.3 dBA daytime noise level increase such that the Project's construction-noise impacts did not exceed the 5 dBA level noise increase significance threshold. (AR 3343.)
Based on expert opinion, however, Petitioner reports the City's ambient noise level determination failed to take into account the 12-story height of the Textile Building Lofts.

Higher stories have lower ambient noise levels. (AR 10085-10086 [identifying ambient noise is as low as 58.5 for the twelfth floor].) The daytime ambient noise levels are not the same "for all floors of the Textile Building [Lofts] because the higher floors are farther from the road traffic than lower floors." (AR 10085.) Thus, the City's conclusion construction-noise related impacts 20 Petitioner appears to have abandoned the argument in reply.

to the Textile Building Lofts is flawed-it is based on an "unsupported assumption about existing ambient noise levels." (Opening Brief 25:15-16.) The City's expert does not address the ambient daytime noise level for the higher floors of the Textile Building Lofts. The City's expert did consider the building, however, using the same methodology used in the DEIR. (AR 4305.) The City's expert determined the Textile Building Lofts would experience an increase in noise based on construction of 1.3 dBA (or less). (AR 3173-74, 7229.)
Further, Project construction-related noise impacts are expected to remain below the City's 5 dBA significance threshold. (AR 3343, 7229.) In a June 19, 2019 memorandum, the City's noise expert explained:
"[T]his [Maple Street for the Textile Building Lofts] baseline noise level is far greater than the 50.8 dBA leq noise level used to represent baseline conditions at the Santee Court Apartments receptor. Utilizing the same construction source and mitigation assumptions that were used for the Santee Court Apartments analysis, as Textile Building Lofts would benefit from the same mitigation measures intended to reduce construction noise impacts at Santee Court Apartments, Textile Building Lofts would be projected to experience a construction-related noise increase of just 1.3 dBA leq, similar to but less than the 1.6 dBA leq impact that would occur at Santee Court Apartments. The noise impact at Textile Building Lofts would not exceed the 5 dBA noise increase threshold; in fact, it would not exceed the 3 dBA leq threshold of perceptibility that represents when noise conditions may be noticeably louder." (AR 7229.)
While Petitioner relies expert opinion to dispute and contradict the City's expert technical report, Petitioner has not demonstrated the City's expert studies are so "clearly inadequate or unsupported" as to be "entitled to no judicial deference." (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 cal.3d 376, 409 fn. 12. ["A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference."]) "When an agency is faced with conflicting evidence on an issue, it is permitted to give more weight to some of the evidence and to favor the opinions of some experts over others. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1397.) Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a prejudicial abuse of discretion related to the City's analysis of construction-related noise impacts. (See State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 795. [''The party challenging the EIR, however, bears the burden of demonstrating that the studies on which the EIR is based 'are clearly inadequate or unsupported.'"])

2. Feasibility and Effectiveness of MM l-1 and 1-2
Petitioner argues MM 1-1 and 1-2 are vague, ineffective and unenforceable. a. MM 1-1
''To ensure that the Project's construction-related noise levels do not exceed 75 dBA and that construction-related noise increases at Santee Court Apartments do not exceed 5 dBA," the City adopted MM 1-1. MM 1-1 provides "(a]II capable diesel-powered construction vehicles shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers or other suitable noise reduction devices." (AR 1011.) Petitioner contends MM 1-1 does not establish a performance standard because nothing in the mitigation measure sets a required noise level reduction. Petitioner argues muffler use alone does not ensure MM 1-1 will achieve any particular level of mitigation. Petitioner asserts "the fact that exhaust mufflers should or could reduce equipment noise by 3 dBA or more doesn't address the fact that the measure, as written, does not require mitigation at that level and therefore does not ensure that level of mitigation will be achieved, as is necessary to support the finding of no significant impacts from construction noise." (Opening Brief 28:18-22.) As noted earlier, "For projects for which an EIR has been prepared, where substantial evidence supports the approving agency's conclusion that mitigation measures will be effective, courts will uphold such measures against attacks based on their alleged inadequacy." (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at 1027.) The City contends MM 1-1 as written will be effective. The use of mufflers to abate noise impacts is considered "best practices" and recommended under the City's CEQA threshold guide. (AR 2773, 2786-2787, 7299, 10131-10132 [EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control Study], 10139.)21 In addition, the City's noise expert confirmed the use of mufflers as required by MM 1-1 would achieve a 3 dBA noise reduction. (AR 3085-3086, 10139-10140.) The expert explained "aftermarket mufflers reduce noise by over 3 dBA. (AR 10139.) In addition, the Project's MMRP requires the Flower Growers to retain an independent Construction Monitor, approved by the City, responsible for: (a) ensuring that "capable" mufflers are used during construction; and (b) documenting compliance. (AR 2848-2849.) While the court agrees MM 1-1 does not contain a specific performance standard, it does mandate the use of certain equipment that does have performance standards. Substantial evidence supports the City's conclusion the use of mufflers will be effective at reducing noise levels by at least 3 dBA. The City's noise expert reviewed aftermarket muffler manufacturer 21 The EPA study, upon which the City's CEQA Threshold Guide relies, shows that "equipment mufflers should reduce excavation and grading phase noise levels by 3 dBA. (AR 10131.)

specification materials to reach his conclusion mufflers result in noise reductions exceeding 3 dBA. An EPA study also supports the City's conclusion.

Accordingly, the City's conclusion MM 1-1 will be effective with a sufficiently clear performance standard (by virtue of the equipment used) is supported by substantial evidence. (Guidelines§ 15384, subd. (b).)
b. MMl-2
''To ensure that the Project's construction-related noise levels do not exceed 75 dBA and that construction-related noise increases at Santee Court Apartments do not exceed 5 dBA," the City adopted MM 1-2. MM 1-2 requires "[t]emporary sound barriers capable of achieving a sound attenuation of at least 15 dBA shall be erected along the Project's boundaries facing Santee Court Apartments. Temporary sound barriers capable of achieving a sound attenuation of at least 6 dBA shall be erected along all other Project construction boundaries." (AR 1011.} MM 1- 2 requires sound barriers at the Project's boundaries.

Again, Petitioner contends the MM is vague, ineffective and unenforceable.

First, Petitioner asserts achieving a sound attenuation of 15 dBA is so vague it is ineffective; the mitigation measure does not specify from where the sound attenuation is to be judged. As written, the mitigation measure would allow sound attenuation to be evaluated at the Project boundaries instead of a sensitive receptor's location. To the extent sound attenuation is to be measured at the sensitive receptor, it may allow measurement from street level ignoring impacts at higher floors. Higher floor sound attenuation is important as the efficacy of sound barriers to shield higher floors in a building is questionable.22 Second, Petitioner argues sound barriers erected along the Project boundaries will be ineffective as they would be too far from construction equipment to effectively reduce noise. 23 The City dismisses Petitioner's arguments as "wordsmithing." (Opposition Brief 35:5.) The City explains the EIR supports the conclusion that noise barriers with a transmission loss value of 25 dBA are capable of achieving the required noise reduction of 15 dBA at the identified sensitive receptors. (AR 2787, 3085-3086.) Moreover, the City's noise expert explains:
22 Petitioner reports sound is most audible when it travels by direct line of sight. Sound barriers are largely ineffective if they do not break the line of sight between the source and receiver. (AR 992.) The City does not seem to dispute this notion. 23 Petitioner explains sound barriers are most effective when they are very close to either the source or the receiver and become less effective with greater distance from the noiseproducing equipment. (AR 10082.)

''The level topography of the South Building site and single proposed sub-grade level would allow for the easy positioning and movement of these barriers to shield construction activities, no matter where they may occur on-site. There are numerous free-standing temporary noise barrier systems used in the industry up to 24 feet in height that may be positioned manually or by vehicles such as construction forklifts and/or loaders." (AR 10140; see also AR 7299.) The City's response actually concedes the flaw in the efficacy of MM 1-2 as it is written. Effective mitigation to sensitive receptors requires the noise barrier systems to be moved. The City argues MM 1-2 is effective because "the noise barriers are moveable, meaning that they move in concert with any piece of construction equipment to ensure the equipment does not operate with an unobstructed line of sight to a receptor." (Opposition Brief 35:15-17.) The City recognizes the barriers must be moveable "to shield construction activities, no matter where they occur onsite." (Opposition Brief 35:18-19.)
Despite the City's recognition the noise barriers must be moved throughout the Project during construction to effectively mitigate construction-related noise, MM 1-2 does not require such movement. It is not about wordsmithing-it is about enforceability and efficacy. The City's attempts to distinguish between "Project boundaries" and "property boundaries" is unpersuasive.24 Such a distinction-if there is one-does not resolve the ambiguity. Nothing in MM 1-2 requires any noise barriers to be moved.25
Accordingly, the court finds substantial evidence does not support the City's conclusion MM 1-2 is an effective mitigation measure.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the petition is granted.

During argument, the Flower Growers suggested the court should ~ddress remedies if the court granted the petition. "In most cases, when a court finds that any agency has violated CEOA in approving a project, it issues a writ of mandate requiring the agency to set aside its CEOA determination, to set aside the project approvals, and to take specific corrective action before it considers approving the project." (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 896.)
24 In the EIR, the City defines the Project boundaries as approximately 3.87 acres consisting of one block. It would seem the "Project boundaries" are, in fact, the property boundaries. (AR 748.)
25 Given the comments raised concerning the barriers and the timing of the comments, there are issues of feasibility given barrier mobility issues. (AR 10076.)

The court believes an order consistent with most CEQA writ petition cases is appropriate.

Flower Growers, however, may submit an objection to the judgment if it has an objection to the usual order of requiring the City to set aside the project approvals.

Petitioner shall submit a proposed form of judgment with service on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 5 , 2021 t_A i t,-Lulli~== Hon. MitcheUBeclloff
Judge of the Superior Court

11/9/23, 6:42 PM The Dangers of Orphaned Oil Wells | Oilfield Injury & Explosion Attorneys https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/oilfield-accidents/the-dangers-of-orphaned-oil-wells/ 1/4 An estimated 9 million Americans live within a mile of orphaned oil wells – and that’s just the documented wells. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are likely about 3 million abandoned oil and gas wells scattered across the United States. Approximately two-thirds of these have not been properly plugged and decommissioned.

When an oil well is abandoned, it may emit toxins and pollution that contaminate groundwater, affecting local communities and the environment. Abandoned and orphaned wells are also considered major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, spurring the creation of several state and federal programs aimed at decommissioning such wells before they can cause further harm. Unfortunately, many of these programs lack the funding and personnel to be effective on a broad scale.

Abandoned and orphaned wells are a serious problem in the United States, and yet it seems that little is being done to address them. From property owners who have long-abandoned wells on their land to communities located near large, old oilfield operations, countless people who are impacted by orphaned wells are running into obstacles when they try to get these wells plugged and decommissioned.

By digging a little deeper, we can shed light on the scope of the issue and what can be done about it.

What Is an Orphaned Well?
The first commercial oil well in the United States was drilled in 1859 on the banks of Oil Creek near Titusville, Pennsylvania. Since that time, millions of wells have been drilled across the country, primarily in the oil-rich states of Texas, Alaska, California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Louisiana. They remain to this day – even the wells that have not been producing for decades. Some are more than a century old, and most that date back to the beginning of the 1900s and earlier are not documented at all.

A well is considered abandoned if its owner or operator has taken it out of production. It is considered orphaned if its owner cannot be located or no longer exists. These wells now sit, inactive, for years, decades, or even more than a century.

Methane Emissions & Other Hazards of Orphaned Wells
When an oil or gas well is no longer productive enough to be economically viable, the owner is required to properly plug the well. This is a lengthy process that can take days, a week, or even longer depending on the depth of the well and other factors. Typically, cement plugs are set in the wellbore at specific intervals to prevent the flow of fluid. When a well is properly decommissioned, it should not pose a significant hazard to the environment and any people who live or work nearby.

Unfortunately, many wells are shoddily plugged or are not plugged at all. Their owners may become bankrupt, or companies may be sold or dissolved. Some oil and gas companies make the conscious decision to abandon wells or may claim to “temporarily” abandon operations, never to return. Even wells that have been plugged may have been decommissioned decades ago, before current regulations were in place. The result? Millions of abandoned wells litter U.S. soil, presenting serious risks of contamination and even explosions and fires.

Improperly plugged or decommissioned oil and gas wells are essentially open holes in the ground. They may release toxins like methane, arsenic, benzene, and hydrogen sulfide into the environment, even when they are no longer productive. They can cause fires and explosions. Even a small leak from a single well could have a tremendous impact over years or decades, affecting the soil and groundwater and causing air pollution.

Methane is one of the biggest threats posed by orphaned oil wells. The odorless gas can seep into homes, offices, schools, and other nearby buildings without a trace, causing serious health problems The Dangers of Orphaned Oil Wells
100% Free Consultation
( 8 8 8 ) 4 9 3 -1 6 2 9
About Us Meet Our Attorneys Practice Areas
Our VictoriesTestimonials
Common Questions
Español CONTACT US
11/9/23, 6:42 PM The Dangers of Orphaned Oil Wells | Oilfield Injury & Explosion Attorneys https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/oilfield-accidents/the-dangers-of-orphaned-oil-wells/ 2/4 and symptoms like nausea, weakness, vomiting, and convulsions. In high concentrations, methane exposure can cause coma and even death. It is also highly explosive.

Then there’s the connection between methane emissions from abandoned wells and global warming, which researchers estimate cause climate damage that’s about equivalent to consuming about 16 million barrels of crude oil every year. The more than 3 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the United States alone are estimated to have emitted 281 kilotons of methane – just in 2018. According to the EPA, methane accounts for about 20% of global emissions and is 25% more capable than carbon dioxide of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Abandoned Wells Pose Dangers to Nearby Homes, Communities & Workers In January 2019, construction workers at a site in Marina Del Rey, California, experienced a near-death experience when they dug into an abandoned oil well. The resulting blowout sent a mixture of natural gas, mud, and water shooting up into the air, and one worker was sprayed before he was able to escape using a safety rope.

In 2017, a man and his brother-in-law were killed in a house explosion in Firestone, Colorado as the result of gas leaking from a severed flow line. The line was associated with an abandoned, inactive oil well owned by Anadarko Petroleum. Local authorities believe that the leak started when a tank battery was moved to build the subdivision where the house was located.

A school in the small town of Midwest, Wyoming closed in 2016 after teaching staff and students complained of headaches and smelled gas-like odors. Air quality tests confirmed the presence of high concentrations of benzene and carbon dioxide, which were associated with an abandoned well nearby; carbon dioxide was finding its way into the school through small underground cracks. Benzene levels were found to be 200 times the recommended limit; carbon dioxide levels were 20 times the recommended limit. It took more than a year for the abandoned well to be plugged and the school to reopen.

In 2011, a house in McKean County, Pennsylvania, suddenly exploded. Luckily, the owner was outside when his home burst into flames. Investigators determined that the explosion was caused by a methane leak from an abandoned well drilled back in 1881. The well was located about 300 feet from the home.

These are just a few incidents involving blowouts and explosions at abandoned oil and gas wells. There are countless other stories of ranchers dealing with old, abandoned wells contaminating their groundwater, killing cattle, and causing mysterious health problems among family members. People are living and working in communities located near abandoned oilfields that report smelling gas in the air and experiencing frequent headaches, asthma, nausea, and other symptoms often associated with toxic exposure.

The Time & Expense of Plugging an Abandoned Oil Well
The cost of plugging an abandoned oil well is significant. Some have estimated that it will cost upwards of $300 billion to plug every abandoned well in the United States. According to one study, the average cost of plugging a well is about $20,000. For deeper wells, however, the costs increase by about 20% for every additional 1,000 feet. The average cost of plugging and addressing surface reclamation is about $76,000 per well. Specific costs may vary depending on the depth of the well, its age, where the well is located, and more. In rare cases, plugging and decommissioning certain wells could cost up to $1 million.

Who shoulders this financial burden? Logically, it should be the company that owned or operated the well. Unfortunately, orphaned wells are named such because they have no clear owners. With that in mind, would landowners be responsible? What about the government? Accountability for plugging wells may vary depending on the jurisdiction, but if the well is considered abandoned and its owner/operator can be located, they would be liable. If a well is classified as orphaned because its owner cannot be located, the state government is responsible – if the landowner did not have previous control over drilling operations. This landowner immunity may vary depending on the state and the specific circumstances.

In January 2022, the Biden administration announced that 26 states in the U.S. aim to apply for some of the $4.7 billion budgeted in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the clean-up and decommissioning of abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. This is part of President Biden’s commitment to address global warming by reducing methane emissions. Such cleanup measures would also produce new jobs and help communities located near abandoned oilfields and wells.

This is a good start, but plugging millions of abandoned wells is bound to cost more than $4.7 billion (as astronomical as that figure may be). Oil and gas companies must be held responsible not only for running safe drilling operations but for properly plugging and shutting down wells that are no longer viable. There has to be more accountability and more intervention.

At Arnold & Itkin, we stand for landowners, workers, and all people who have been adversely affected by the unethical operations of companies that are more interested in their profits than the environment, the people they employ, and the communities where their wells and plants are located. When explosions happen, we stand up for those who have been injured or lost loved ones. When wells blow out, we fight for answers and accountability. Offshore or on land, our attorneys do everything it takes to help good people who have found themselves in the worst situations.

To find out how we can help you, call (888) 493-1629 or contact us online. 11/9/23, 6:42 PM The Dangers of Orphaned Oil Wells | Oilfield Injury & Explosion Attorneys https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/oilfield-accidents/the-dangers-of-orphaned-oil-wells/ 3/4

O I L F I E L D A C C I D E N T S
Permian Basin Oil Boom:

America's Most Dangerous Border

READ MORE

O I L F I E L D A C C I D E N T S
Why Do Oil Rigs Winterize? 6
Real Dangers for Rig Workers

READ MORE

O I L F I E L D A C C I D E N T S
Cold-Weather Gear Every Oil Rig
Worker Should (& Should NOT)
Wear

READ MORE
First Name Last Name
Email Phone
Are you a new client? Case Type
Tell Us What Happened
100% Free Consultation
( 8 8 8 ) 4 9 3 -1 6 2 9
Home Meet Our Attorneys Practice Areas Our Victories Contact Us

O F F I C E L O C A T I O N S
Houston
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77007
Louisiana
835 Louisiana Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 412-6348
Dallas
3615 N. Hall Street
Dallas, TX 75219
(469) 208-5535
Midland
1030 Andrews Hwy
Suite 204
Midland, TX 79701
(432) 233-0813
Suggested Posts
ConGet Startetd wiath a FreecConsutltationUs
SEND
11/9/23, 6:42 PM The Dangers of Orphaned Oil Wells | Oilfield Injury & Explosion Attorneys https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/oilfield-accidents/the-dangers-of-orphaned-oil-wells/ 4/4 © 2023 All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Site Map
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The verdicts and settlements listed on this site are intended to be representative of cases handled by Arnold & Itkin LLP. These listings are not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims (888) 493-1629
By Appointment Only
Get Directions
Get Directions
View Website
Get Directions
View Website
Get Directions
View Website
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 1/16 COMMODITIES NEWS JUNE 16, 2020 / 4:14 AM / UPDATED 3 YEARS AGO Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil
wells are leaking methane, a climate
menace
By Nichola Groom 1 5 M I N R E AD
SALYERSVILLE, Kentucky (Reuters) - (This June 16 story corrects comparison in paragraph eight of climate damage from methane leaks to that from U.S. oil consumption. The leaks cause climate damage roughly equivalent to typical U.S. oil consumption in one day, not two days.) Directory of sites Login Contact Support
World Business Markets Breakingviews Video More
Discover Thomson Reuters
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 2/16 In May 2012, Hanson and Michael Rowe noticed an overpowering smell, like rotten eggs, seeping from an abandoned gas well on their land in Kentucky.

The fumes made the retired couple feel nauseous, dizzy, and short of breath.

Regulators responding to the leak couldn’t find an owner to fix it. J.D. Carty Resources LLC had drilled the well near the Rowes’ home in 2006 - promising the family a 12.5% royalty and free natural gas, which they never got. But Carty went bust in 2008 and sold the site to a company that was later acquired by Blue Energy LLC. Lawyers for both companies deny any responsibility for the leak.

FILE PHOTO: Hanson Rowe, a landowner who blames a leaky gas well on his property for health problems, smells for the odor of gas emanating from an abandoned well on his property in Salyersville, Kentucky, U.S., February 28, 2020. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 3/16 A year later, Kentucky’s Division of Oil and Gas declared the well an environmental emergency and hired Boots & Coots Inc - the Texas contractor that doused oil-well fires after the Gulf War - to plug it. During the 40-day operation, the Rowes retreated to a trailer on their property and lived with no running water to escape the gases and noise. Regulators determined the leak was a toxic blend of hydrogen sulfide, a common drilling byproduct, and the potent greenhouse gas methane.
“I wouldn’t go through this again for $1 million,” said Hanson Rowe, who with his wife is suing the energy companies for compensation.

The incident, while extreme, reflects a growing global problem: More than a century of oil and gas drilling has left behind millions of abandoned wells, many of which are leaching pollutants into the air and water. And drilling companies are likely to abandon many more wells due to bankruptcies, as oil prices struggle to recover from historic lows after the coronavirus pandemic crushed global fuel demand, according to bankruptcy lawyers, industry analysts and state regulators.

Leaks from abandoned wells have long been recognized as an environmental problem, a health hazard and a public nuisance. They have been linked to dozens of instances of groundwater contamination by research commissioned by the Groundwater Protection Council, whose members include state ground water agencies. Orphaned wells have been blamed for a slew of public safety incidents over the years, including a methane blowout at the construction site of a waterfront hotel in California last year.

They also pose a serious threat to the climate that researchers and world governments are only starting to understand, according to a Reuters review of 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 4/16 government data and interviews with scientists, regulators, and United Nations officials. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year recommended that U.N. member countries start tracking and publishing the amount of methane leaching from their abandoned oil and gas wells after scientists started flagging it as a global warming risk. So far, the United States and Canada are the only nations to do so.

The U.S. figures are sobering: More than 3.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells together emitted 281 kilotons of methane in 2018, according to the data, which was included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent report on April 14 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That’s the climate-damage equivalent of consuming about 16 million barrels of crude oil, according to an EPA calculation, or about as much as the United States, the world’s biggest oil consumer, uses in a typical day. (For a graphic on the rise in abandoned oil wells, click tmsnrt.rs/2MsWInw )
The actual amount could be as much as three times higher, the EPA says, because of incomplete data. The agency believes most of the methane comes from the more than 2 million abandoned wells it estimates were never properly plugged.

The problem is less severe in Canada, where the bulk of oil production comes from oil sands mining instead of traditional drilling. The government estimated that its 313,000 abandoned wells emitted 10.1 kt of methane in 2018, far less than in the United States.

The global impact is harder to measure. The governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China – which round out the top five world oil-and-gas producers 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 5/16 – did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment on their abandoned wells and have not published reports on the wells’ methane leakage.

Researchers say it’s impossible to accurately estimate global emissions from leaky abandoned wells without better data. But a rough Reuters calculation, based on the U.S. share of global crude oil and natural gas production, would place the number of abandoned wells around the world at more than 29 million, with emissions of 2.5 million tonnes of methane per year - the climate-damage equivalent of three weeks of U.S. oil consumption.

HIDDEN MENACE
In a forested area of western New York state in February, a group of state regulators, along with researchers from the State University of New York at Binghamton, trudged through the snow. They stopped at a rotting wooden structure encircling a rusted pipe.

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) official Charlie Dietrich held a bright orange device over the heap. It emitted a high-pitched signal, and its screen showed a code indicating the presence of ignitable gas. A scent of petroleum wafted through the air.
“There’s some methane coming up out of there,” DEC Mineral Resources Specialist Nathan Graber said.

The abandoned well lies in the forests of Olean, New York, which was an oil boomtown at the turn of the 20th century. The site was one of 72 locations logged by geophysicists Tim de Smet and Alex Nikulin in December, 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 6/16 researchers from Binghamton, using a drone equipped with a metal detector, part of a program launched in 2013 to help New York identify and plug abandoned wells.

New York’s DEC has records of 2,200 abandoned wells dating back to the late 1800s. But the state believes the actual number could be much higher, because of incomplete records.
“It’s a lot easier to find stuff when you know where to look,” Nikulin said.

The group is among an array of regulators, activists and federal agencies now seeking out abandoned wells from the U.S. Northeast to California. The heightened interest in the climate threat posed by the wells started with a 2014 study by Princeton graduate student Mary Kang, who was the first to measure methane emissions from old drilling sites in Pennsylvania. She concluded in 2016 that abandoned wells represent 5% to 8% of total humancaused methane emissions in the state. “It’s not like they leak for one year, and then they stop,” said Kang, now a professor of civil engineering at McGill University in Montreal. “Some of these have been there maybe for 100 years. And they are going to be there for another 100 years.”
Although the Trump administration has downplayed global warming and its link to fossil fuels, the U.S. Energy Department has been financing efforts to improve data on emissions from abandoned wells. Researchers from DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) recently took measurements from more than 200 wells in Kentucky and Oklahoma and are planning field work in Texas. They plan to publish their data by next spring. 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 7/16 Slideshow ( 18 images )
NETL researcher Natalie Pekney said
the work was crucial to better
understanding the climate impact of
abandoned wells. Many wells don’t
leak much or at all, she said, while
others have “huge” methane
emissions.

NETL had previously used aerial
surveys to locate old wells in Pennsylvania – home to the massive Marcellus gas deposit – so drillers could avoid pushing fluids and gases up through old abandoned well sites deep in the state’s forests. Its researchers found many old wells contained bubbling fluids, an indicator of methane leaks.

GROWING PROBLEM
Nationwide, the number of documented abandoned wells has jumped by more than 12% since 2008, around the start of the hydraulic fracturing boom, according to the EPA estimates.

Many experts believe the number will keep growing. Oil-and-gas firm bankruptcies in the United States and Canada rose 50% to 42 in 2019, and analysts say the rate is likely to accelerate as the pandemic-related slide in energy prices shakes out producers.

Research firm Rystad Energy estimates that about 73 U.S. drilling companies could go bankrupt this year, with an additional 170 succumbing in 2021, assuming an average oil price of $30 a barrel.
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 8/16 “When prices are this low, it becomes a very serious problem. It becomes a fight over who is going to ultimately have to pay” for cleaning up abandoned wells, said John Penn, a bankruptcy attorney with Perkins Coie LLP in Dallas. “It makes it really bad, and it’s going to get worse.”
A school district in Beverly Hills, California, was saddled with a bill of at least $11 million to plug 19 oil wells on the property of its high school, after a judge in 2017 absolved Venoco LLC - the bankrupt company that had been operating the wells - of any responsibility for clean-up because other creditors took priority. The city of Beverly Hills is contributing another $11 million to the job.
“This is an incredible amount of money” siphoned away from education, said Michael Bregy, superintendent of the Beverly Hills Unified School District.

State and federal regulations normally require drillers to pay an up-front bond to cover future cleanups if they go belly-up. But the rules are a patchwork, with wildly differing requirements, and they seldom leave governments adequately funded. In Pennsylvania, for example, it would take several thousand years to plug its estimated backlog of 200,000 abandoned oil wells at the current rate of spending, according to data from the state regulator.

Oil-industry lobbyists have been fighting state and federal efforts to increase the bonding, arguing it would hurt jobs and economic growth during an already tough time for the industry.
“States and the federal government have many sources of funding available to reclaim and plug abandoned wells,” said Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, the country’s largest oil and gas trade group. 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 9/16 The API spent $1.44 million in the first quarter of 2020 lobbying on Capitol Hill, with oil well bonding legislation one of the target issues, lobbying disclosures show.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that cleaning up and plugging an abandoned well runs from $20,000 to $145,000, putting the price tag for cleaning up all of America’s abandoned wells somewhere between $60 billion to $435 billion.
‘SHOOTING OUT OF THE EARTH’
The pollution threat goes beyond climate change. Leaks from abandoned wells have been found to contaminate groundwater and soil. In extreme cases, gas from abandoned wells has caused explosions.

In Ohio and Texas, state regulators have each found an average of around two groundwater contamination incidents per year related to orphaned wells, according to research by the Groundwater Protection Council published in 2011 and dating to the 1980s.

In April 2017, for example, neighbors of Ohio farmer Stan Brenneman alerted him to the smell of oil coming from a drainage ditch on his 111-acre corn and soybean farm near the town of Elida, Brenneman told Reuters. The ditch drains water from the farm and carries it into rivers, streams and eventually Lake Erie.

Ohio’s Division of Oil & Gas Resources Management excavated 800 feet of the farm’s drainage system to find a well casing - about 130 years old - releasing oil three feet underground. The plugging operation took two 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-clima… 10/16 months to complete and cost the state $196,915, according to a spokeswoman for the state Department of Natural Resources.

More recently, in 2018, the U.S. EPA was alerted to the presence of nearly 50 abandoned oil and gas wells on Navajo Nation lands within the borders of Utah and New Mexico that were bubbling water at the surface. Tests showed the way from some of the wells contained potentially dangerous levels of arsenic, sulfate, benzene and chloride.

The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency said plugging the wells would require “major funds” and that, in the meantime, the public had been warned not to drink the water.

In rare cases, gas from long-abandoned wells can cause dangerous accidents.

In January of last year, a 1930s-era well sent a geyser of gas and dirt 100 feet into the air at the construction site of a Marriott seaside hotel in Marina del Rey, California, an upscale community in the Los Angeles area, according to a state report. The hotel owners did not respond to a request for comment. “It was horrifying,” said resident Marilyn Wall, who witnessed the explosion from her home across the street. She said she was stunned “by the extent and the length of time that the stuff was shooting out of the earth.” A worker standing on a construction platform above the plume was sprayed with debris and scrambled to lower himself down with an escape rope, a video of the explosion shows.
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climat… 11/16 DON’T DRINK THE WATER
For Hanson and Michael Rowe, their troubles did not end the day their abandoned well was plugged. They no longer drink from the water well on their property because it gives them diarrhea, they said. Michael Rowe said she still suffers from headaches and coughing spells.

Kentucky’s Energy and Environment Cabinet is still fighting to recoup the $383,340 cost from the now-defunct J.D. Carty and Blue Energy in an ongoing court battle.

An attorney for John Carty, founder of J.D. Carty, said his client had sold what few assets remained in the company and therefore bore no responsibility. A lawyer for Blue Energy said the company denies ever operating the wells on the property and has no responsibility to maintain or plug them.

J.D. Carty was only required to have one $50,000 “blanket bond” to cover all its wells in Kentucky. The amount forfeited to pay for the leaky well on Rowe’s land, determined in part by its depth, was just $2,500 - less than 1% of the cost to fix it.

After the incident, Kentucky lawmakers passed a bill last year that effectively doubled bond requirements for shallow wells to help cope with the state’s 13,000 abandoned wells. Still, state regulators say the list of wells is growing.

Hanson Rowe said he supports fossil fuel development because using natural gas for heat and cooking has improved his quality of life. But the couple say they hope their lawsuit against the companies involved will help change the way the energy industry manages its wells.
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-clima… 12/16 “You lost your health, you’ve lost it all,” Hanson Rowe said.

Reporting by Nichola Groom; Additional reporting by Ekaterina Golubkova in Moscow, Rania El Gamal in Riyadh; Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Brian Thevenot Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-clima… 13/16 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-clima… 14/16 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-clima… 15/16 11/9/23, 6:47 PM Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-clima… 16/16 Apps Newsletters Advertise with Us Advertising Guidelines Cookies Terms of Use Privacy Do Not Sell My Personal Information
All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. © 2023 Reuters. All Rights Reserved.
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 1/14 Science Politics & Policy Justice Fossil Fuels Clean Energy Donate
Fossil Fuels
Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit
Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants,
Groundbreaking Study Shows
The release of cancer-causing benzene and other toxic gases from sites in Pennsylvania raises concerns about millions of other abandoned wells across the U.S.

By Liza Gross
June 6, 2023
Share this article
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 2/14 John Carterlooks at old oil field equipment covered by vegetation near his home February 18, 2016 in Depew, Oklahoma. Thousands of abandoned oil wells were never properly mapped and many of the original drilling companies no longer exist. Credit: J Pat Carter/Getty Images)
On a cloudy late-winter morning in 2004, Charles and Dorothy Harper were babysitting their 17-month-old grandson, Baelee, when the furnace in their rural Western Pennsylvania home revved up. The newly retired pastor and his wife did not realize that flammable gas had infiltrated the basement of the house, which they had recently built.

Around 9 a.m. that dreary March morning, a massive explosion leveled the house and left three lifeless bodies buried in the rubble along a country road about 80 miles northeast of Pittsburgh.

There were 16 known gas wells within 3,000 feet of the Harpers’ home. Natural gas from a well that was being drilled had entered the basement through the couple’s well water, a marshal with a local fire department told The Pittsburgh Tribune Review at the time. Officials knew this, the marshal said, because they tested the victims’ blood and lung tissue after recovering their bodies and found methane—a potent climate-warming compound that is the main constituent of natural gas.

Yet a new study suggests that residents of the nation’s fossil-fuel producing regions could be facing a different threat: carcinogens and other toxic air contaminants spewing from millions of wells that are no longer even operating.

In a study in the journal ACS Omega, researchers have reported the discovery of harmful volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, leaking from 48 abandoned wells in Western Pennsylvania.

Scientists have long known from studies of active drill sites that oil and gas wells produce a wide range of hazardous air pollutants. Yet until now, no independent researchers had systematically measured toxic air contaminants from any of the more than 3 million abandoned oil and gas wells scattered across the nation.

In the study, researchers with the nonprofit research and policy institute PSE Healthy Energy measured both the emission rates and the concentrations of harmful VOCs coming from abandoned wells in the heart of the nation’s largest gas field, the Marcellus Shale. “Our study is the first to thoroughly identify that there is a benzene hazard associated with abandoned wells,” said the lead author, Seth Shonkoff, the executive editor of the research institute, PSE Healthy Energy.

Many were releasing benzene, a well-established cause of cancer, along with compounds that damage the nervous, immune and respiratory systems, the researchers reported. They found air concentrations as high as 250 parts per million—250,000 times the California safety threshold of 0.001 parts per million, which public health experts use as a gold standard because it tends to protect the most vulnerable populations, such as children.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies benzene as a known human carcinogen for every route of exposure, whether inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin, and the World Health Organization has concluded that no safe level of exposure to benzene exists.

Decades ago, studies associated benzene with an increased risk of cancer for oil industry workers. VOCs like those found at the abandoned wells are also well-established precursors of smog, or ground-level ozone. Exposure to ozone is linked to diverse health problems, including uncontrolled asthma requiring emergency room visits and hospitalization and cardiovascular and respiratory disease leading to premature deaths.

Newsletters
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 3/14 We deliver climate news to yourinbox like nobody else. Every day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines deliver the full story, forfree.

ICN Weekly
Saturdays
Our #1 newsletter delivers the week’s climate and
energy news – our original stories and top
headlines from around the web.

Get ICN Weekly
Inside Clean Energy
Thursdays
Dan Gearino’s habit-forming weekly take on how to
understand the energy transformation reshaping
our world.

Get Inside Clean Energy
Today’s Climate
Twice-a-week
A digest of the most pressing climate-related news,
released every Tuesday and Friday.

Get Today’s Climate
Breaking News
Daily
Don’t miss a beat. Get a daily email of our original,
groundbreaking stories written by our national
network of award-winning reporters.

Get Breaking News
While some of the abandoned wells investigated for the study are buried in remote areas, 93 percent are within 3,280 feet of buildings and homes, the team found. Nearly a quarter are just 328 feet from buildings and homes—less than the length of a football field.

Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist with the University of Washington’s School of Public Health who was not involved in the study, said the article’s findings were disappointing but not surprising.
“There are measured VOCs coming out of these wells that we know are health-harmful,” said Casey, who serves with Shonkoff on a scientific panel advising the state of California on public health regulations for the oil and gas industry. “Most of our health studies to date have focused on residential proximity to active oil and gas wells and have completely ignored this subset of abandoned wells.”
That means the public health community is missing “this whole other set of exposures” in evaluating the impact of oil and gas wells, she said. “If what is found in this study is generalized to all of our abandoned wells, we definitely don’t want people living near them.” Often, the Only Option: Testing Wells on Public Lands
The fact that some abandoned wells are releasing a carcinogenic compound at very high levels raises serious concerns about air quality, groundwater quality and people who could be exposed to problems with both, Shonkoff said. And it adds to a larger body of research on what makes up natural gas as it travels through the oil and gas supply chain, from wells to the pipelines that supply homes and buildings.
“What we’ve found across all these studies, which has actually been quite surprising, is that all of this gas is not just methane,” he said. Almost every single sample of gas across the supply chain, including abandoned wells, contains cancer-causing benzene, his studies have found.

Industry research has already identified emissions of benzene and other gases from active oil and gas wells, Kyle Ferrar, a public health expert with the nonprofit FracTracker Alliance, 11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 4/14 noted. Ferrar, who was not involved in the Pennsylvania study, has long documented uncontrolled well leaks in California.

But it has been hard for independent researchers to get access to old abandoned wells to measure and assess the toxicity of harmful non-methane emissions, he said. So they typically have to locate such wells on public lands. “You don’t have that in a lot of places, but you do in Pennsylvania,” Ferrar said.

Pennsylvania regulators believe that some 200,000 wells that have been abandoned since the first was drilled in the 1850s are missing from state databases. Some remain unaccounted for because they predate modern well permitting and plugging requirements.

For others, historical records indicate that the wells existed but lack coordinates to show where they were, said Neil Shader, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, or DEP. “We can account, for sure, for about 27,000,” he said. “But the rest are lost to history, buried in dead leaves and dirt, paved over, et cetera.” Sometimes, according to Shonkoff, all that’s left is a hole in the ground.

Staff members from the DEP helped Shonkoff’s researchers locate the 48 wells so they could collect and analyze gas. Because most were on public land, the team didn’t need permission to gain access to the sites.

Shonkoff said he would have liked to have sampled every known abandoned well in Pennsylvania. But with the lab analysis alone costing $500 a sample, the time and money needed to study thousands of wells would have been prohibitive. So the team focused on 48.

The results demonstrate that the geology underlying the wells affects what comes out of them. When the researchers compared their Pennsylvania readings to spot samples taken in other oil and gas formations across the country, they saw that benzene concentrations varied considerably by location.

Not all abandoned wells pose the same risks, Shonkoff said. Some are leaking more than others. Some are very close to where people live, work and play. Others could contaminate 11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 5/14 nearby drinking water sources.
“This information should be taken into consideration as we think about which wells to prioritize plugging first, with the limited amount of resources we have to address this massive problem,” he said. That would mean identifying the abandoned wells with the highest emissions of harmful substances and then determining which are closest to communities and their drinking water sources.

In the course of the research, Pennsylvania regulators issued an emergency well-plugging order for a well southeast of Pittsburgh after the team detected levels of methane and benzene at the highest rate measured in the study, 250,000 times California’s safety standard.

Residents of a new housing development three-fifths of a mile away had complained of odors.

The emissions were so pungent and irritating that the researchers cautioned anyone taking air samples at the site in the future to wear protective respiratory gear.

In another case, the researchers discovered that an unplugged abandoned well sat as little as 33 feet from the rented home of a family that had no idea that the pipe in the backyard was an old gas well. The team did not detect benzene at the site but recorded daily methane emissions high enough to pose the risk of a fire and explosion.

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive
ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

Donate Now
Many residences and buildings in oil- and gas-producing regions across the country are built on top of abandoned wells, unbeknownst to the owner or builder, Shonkoff said. That’s why building codes in the Los Angeles Basin, another major oil-producing region, require methane and VOC mitigation systems to be installed in all buildings within specified zones.

The systems blow gas out of a house to prevent it from accumulating. Such a device could have saved the Harper family.
“Before this study, we would think about the big risks being tied only to explosion hazards,” Shonkoff said. The research shows that governments also need to focus on exposure to air pollutants, he added.

A Trillion-Dollar Problem
Last year the Biden administration announced a $4.7 billion program to clean up abandoned wells under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Shader of the Pennsylvania DEP said the agency had received $25 million so far in federal funds to plug abandoned wells and hoped to secure nearly $400 million in all. But plugging thousands of abandoned wells in the state would likely cost billions.

Operators in Pennsylvania must post a bond of $2,500 to drill a new well (and up to $25,000 to cover all wells they drill). They forfeit the money to the state if they abandon the well without plugging it, Shader said. But state officials estimate that it costs an average of $33,000 to plug a well, and as much as $800,000 if the job requires clearing years of debris. 11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 6/14 A new bill proposed in the state assembly would allow regulators to raise bond prices to help support remediation efforts. The Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association recently objected to the legislation, arguing that there was no evidence that operators have been abandoning wells and leaving taxpayers to foot the remediation bill. The association, which represents about 400 operators in the state, did not respond to requests for comment on the study.

Shonkoff says he appreciates that federal funds are being invested in remediation. But with so many abandoned wells across the country and more to come as drilling continues, he adds, it’s really a multitrillion-dollar national problem. For the time being, “we need to get very clear on how to prioritize wells that need to be remediated with the billions of dollars on the table right now,” he said.

In California, Ferrar has identified hundreds of leaking idle wells and infrastructure in Bakersfield and other oil-producing regions in the state but thinks that’s just a fraction of the true count. Although California regulators have required operators to plug many of them, the fixes are temporary because old wells are so leak-prone, he added.

Acting on clear evidence that living, playing and working near active oil and gas operations causes serious health problems, California legislators passed the strongest setback law in the country last year. Regulators stopped implementing protections after an oil industry effort to reverse the law qualified for a referendum on the 2024 general election ballot, although legal experts say the state could simply stop issuing drilling permits near neighborhoods. “This research stresses that we need a setback now more than ever,” Ferrar said.

After the Harpers were killed in 2004, the DEP warned residents that high concentrations of methane in water wells and confined spaces can cause explosions. Now the question remains of whether safety guidance should be issued for state residents living near neglected wells.

Given that many of the wells sampled were emitting harmful gases, sometimes at very high rates, near homes, the study’s authors wrote, “further investigation is necessary to determine whether gas emissions pose an inhalation risk to people living, working, or congregating near abandoned wells.”
For Shonkoff, the new evidence that carcinogens and other toxic air contaminants are being released also underscores an urgent need to move from natural gas to clean energy sources.

Until then, he contends, state regulatory agencies should require the monitoring and disclosure of gas composition throughout the nation’s supply chains. That way, public officials would have the information they need to protect people who might be in harm’s way—and move them before it’s too late.

Share this article
Liza Gross
Reporter, West Coast, National Environmental Reporting Network Liza Gross is a reporterforInside Climate News based in Northern California. She is the author of The Science Writers’ Investigative Reporting Handbook and a contributor to The Science Writers’ Handbook, both funded by National Association of Science Writers’ Peggy Girshman Idea Grants. She has long covered science, conservation, agriculture, public and environmental health and justice with 11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 7/14 Related
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to yourinbox like nobody else. Every day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web's top headlines deliver the full story, forfree.

ICN Weekly
Inside Clean Energy
Today's Climate
Breaking News
Email Address
I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy.

Sign Up
a focus on the misuse of science for private gain. Prior to joining ICN, she worked as a part-time magazine editorfor the open-access journal PLOS Biology, a reporterfor the Food & Environment Reporting Network and produced freelance stories for numerous national outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Discover and Mother Jones. Her work has won awards from the Association of Health Care Journalists, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Society of Professional Journalists NorCal and Association of Food Journalists. [email protected]
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 8/14 Shell Agrees to Pay $10 Million After Permit Violations at its Giant New Plastics Plant in Pennsylvania By James Bruggers
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 9/14 ‘Green Steel’ Would Curb Carbon Emissions, Spur Economic Revival in Southwest Pennsylvania, Study Says By Jon Hurdle
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 10/14 Awash in Toxic Wastewater From Fracking for Natural Gas, Pennsylvania Faces a Disposal Reckoning By Stacey Burling
Most Popular
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 11/14 New Study Warns of an Imminent Spike of Planetary Warming and Deepens Divides Among Climate Scientists By Bob Berwyn
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 12/14 The 5 Best EVs on the Market Right Now, Plus a Cheaper One You’ll Have to Wait For By Dan Gearino
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 13/14 How Midwest Landowners Helped to Derail One of the Biggest CO2 Pipelines Ever Proposed By Kristoffer Tigue
Fossil Fuels
11/9/23, 6:48 PM Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Emit Carcinogens and Other Harmful Pollutants, Groundbreaking Study Shows - Inside Climate News https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062023/abandoned-oil-gas-wells-health/ 14/14 Planned Fossil Fuel Production Vastly Exceeds the World’s Climate Goals, ‘Throwing Humanity’s Future Into Question’
Among the 20 top fossil fuel-producing countries, the U.S., Brazil and Saudi Arabia foresee significant increases in domestic oil production, while Russia, India and Indonesia all project substantial increases in coal.

By Nicholas Kusnetz
How Midwest Landowners Helped to Derail One of the Biggest CO2 Pipelines Ever Proposed Toxic Pesticides Are Sprayed Next to Thousands of US Schools Keep Environmental
Journalism Alive
ICN provides award-winning climate
coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

Donate Now
Science
Politics & Policy
Justice
Fossil Fuels
Clean Energy
Home
About
Contact
Whistleblowers
Privacy Policy
April 2018

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2016:

Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells
In previous versions of this memo released in June and October 2017, and during stakeholder webinars and workshops held in April, June, and August 2017, and March 2018, EPA presented preliminary considerations and sought stakeholder feedback on incorporating an estimate for emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells in the 2018 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (GHGI). This version of the memo is updated to document the methodology implemented in the final 2018 GHGI which reflects stakeholder feedback. EPA continues to seek stakeholder feedback to improve estimates for this source (see pages 10–12).

1. Background
Recent studies have investigated methane leakage from abandoned wells in the U.S. The term "abandoned wells" as typically used in published scientific articles and this memo encompasses various types of wells:
• Wells with no recent production, and not plugged. Common terms (such as those used in state databases) might include: inactive, temporarily abandoned, shut-in, dormant, idle. • Wells with no recent production and no responsible operator. Common terms might include: orphaned, deserted, long-term idle, abandoned.
• Wells that have been plugged to prevent migration of gas or fluids.

Emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells were not included in previous GHGIs. Commenters on previous GHGIs supported including this source, but noted that the current data were limited, and suggested reviewing data that will become available in the future. EPA identified studies with emissions and activity data on abandoned wells (Kang et al. 20141, Kang et al. 20162, Townsend-Small et al. 20163, Brandt et al. 20144) and developed an estimate for this source in the 2018 GHGI.

2. Available Emissions Data
EPA identified and reviewed available emissions data to characterize emissions from abandoned wells, including data from the Kang et al. and Townsend-Small et al. studies.

The Kang et al. 2014 study made direct measurements of methane flow rates from 19 wells in Pennsylvania during 2013 and 2014. The wells were not well-documented in state records, so researchers categorized each studied well as plugged or unplugged based on surface observations. The study did not find significantly different emission rates between the two categories. The Kang et al. 2016 study involved additional measurements to fill data gaps from the earlier study. Kang et al. 2016 measured 88 wells and developed emission factors (EFs) for categories observed to exhibit significantly different emissions levels in that data set: well type (gas versus oil or co-producing), plugging status (plugged versus unplugged), and coal area designation (as Pennsylvania requires wells in regions where mineable coal seams exist to be plugged and vented).

Table 1 showing these EFs (in units of grams per hour per well, g/h/well) is reproduced from the Kang et al. 2016 study, with minor edits for clarification in the context of this memo.

1 http://www.pnas.org/content/111/51/18173.full
2 http://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13636.full, http://www.pnas.org/content/114/29/E6025.full 3 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067623/full 4 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733
April 2018

Table 1. Methane EFs from Kang et al. 2016 Study
Well production
type and coal
area designation
Number of Measured Wells Mean (g/h/well) Standard Error (g/h/well) Unplugged Plugged Unplugged Plugged Unplugged Plugged
All production types
All 53 35 22 15 9.2 10
Coal 17 12 1.2 43 0.99 29
Noncoal 36 23 31 0.45 13 0.28
Oil and combined oil and gas production
All 34 13 0.19 0.33 0.097 0.26
Coal 13 1 0.000011 0.000012 0.00091 n/a
Noncoal 21 12 0.31 0.36 0.15 0.28
Gas production
All 19 22 60 24 24 16
Coal 4 11 5.2 47a 3.9 32
Noncoal 15 11 75 0.54 29 0.51
a - The measured plugged wells in coal areas are vented as required by regulations.

The Townsend-Small et al. study measured emissions from 138 abandoned wells in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, Denver-Julesburg Basin in Colorado, Uintah Basin in Utah, and Appalachian Basin in Ohio, during 2015.

Townsend-Small et al. developed EFs for categories observed to exhibit significantly different emissions levels:
plugged versus unplugged (including inactive, temporarily abandoned, shut in, dormant, orphaned, and abandoned), and eastern versus western U.S. regions. Table 2 showing these EFs is reproduced from the Townsend-Small et al. study.

Table 2. Methane EFs from Townsend-Small et al. Study
Well Category
Number of
Measured Wells Mean (g/h/well)
95% Upper Confidence
Limit (g/h/well)
All wells (entire U.S.) 138 1.38 3.17
All wells (eastern U.S.) 12 14.00 32.87
All wells (western U.S.) 126 0.18 0.41
Plugged wells (entire U.S.) 119 0.002 0.005
Unplugged wells (entire U.S.) 19 10.02 22.47
Plugged (eastern U.S.) 6 0 NA
Unplugged (eastern U.S.) 6 28.01 64.00
Plugged (western U.S.) 113 0.002 0.005
Unplugged (western U.S.) 13 1.71 3.83
Bold indicates value used in the 2018 GHGI.

EPA considered several options for developing EFs and stratifying the EFs to reflect differences between populations that were observed in studies. EPA considered developing separate factors by plugging status, by region, and/or by production type; and whether and how to combine Townsend-Small et al. and Kang et al. data to develop these EFs. Table 3 shows EFs calculated by combining data from Kang et al. 2016 and Townsend-Small 2016 study measurements for the Appalachian basin. While Kang et al. 2014 did not find significant differences between plugged and unplugged well emissions, both Kang et al. 2016 and Townsend-Small et al. 2016 studies did. Limited emissions data are available to support potentially stratifying EFs based on producing formation or production type. Townsend-Small et al. measured wells in both the east (Appalachian Basin) and newer formations in the west, and observed significantly different emission rates; however, the data available do not include characterization of abandoned wells in other major producing regions such as Texas and California. Kang April 2018

et al. 2016 observed significantly different emission rates between gas and oil/coproducing wells, and between coal and non-coal areas; however, all such data were collected in Pennsylvania, so they might not represent national emissions.

Table 3. Appalachian Basin Methane EFs Developed from Combining Studies Data Source
Number of Measured
Wells Mean (g/h/well)
Plugged wells
Kang et al. 2016 – All production types, noncoal areas 23 0.45 Townsend-Small et al. 2016 – Eastern U.S. 6 0
Combined 29 0.36
Unplugged wells
Kang et al. 2016 – All production types, noncoal areas 36 31 Townsend-Small et al. 2016 – Eastern U.S. 6 28.01
Combined 42 30.57
Bold indicates value used in the 2018 GHGI.

Based on analysis of various options (refer to the October 2017 memo) and stakeholder feedback, EPA calculated abandoned well emissions using the plugging status-specific EFs presented in Table 2 and Table 3 above. EPA applied "Appalachian" unplugged, combined and plugged, combined EFs (Table 3) to abandoned wells in Appalachian Basin region states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Kentucky, and Tennessee), and applied Townsend-Small "entire U.S." unplugged and plugged EFs to all other abandoned wells. Emission estimates are discussed further and presented in Section 4.

3. Available Activity Data
EPA identified and reviewed available activity data to pair with methane EFs described above. Activity data for this source are counts of abandoned wells in each year of the 1990-2016 time series; counts are subcategorized by attributes to parallel the EFs—i.e., plugging status (plugged vs. unplugged) and location (Appalachia vs. remainder of U.S.).

3.1 Total Abandoned Well Counts
Estimates in the literature for the total national population of abandoned onshore wells in the U.S. in recent years range from over 2.3 million (Townsend-Small et al. 2016) to approximately 3 million (Brandt et al. 2014).

EPA considered multiple approaches to develop the count of total abandoned wells in each year of the time series. For example: (1) Counting the total number of wells existing but no longer reporting production as of a given year; or (2) Counting wells drilled as of a given year, then subtracting the number of actively producing wells in that year (refer to the June 2017 memo for additional information on this approach).

For the 2018 GHGI, EPA used key fields in the DrillingInfo data set to count wells existing but no longer reporting production as of a given year, within the DrillingInfo data set. EPA's current methodology for counting abandoned wells in the DrillingInfo data set in each year is (note, DrillingInfo field names are shown in parentheses):
• Abandoned oil wells: last date of reported production (LAST_PROD_DATE) is before [year], cumulative hydrocarbon liquids production (LIQ_CUM) is greater than zero, and cumulative gas production (GAS_CUM) is either zero or results in gas-to-oil ratio of less than 100 mcf/bbl. • Abandoned gas wells: last date of reported production (LAST_PROD_DATE) is before [year], cumulative gas production (GAS_CUM) is greater than zero, and cumulative hydrocarbon liquids production (LIQ_CUM) is either zero or results in gas-to-oil ratio of equal to or greater than 100 mcf/bbl.

April 2018

• Abandoned dry wells: last date of reported production (LAST_PROD_DATE) is null; and spud date (SPUD_DATE) is before [year], or spud date is null and completion date (COMP_DATE) is before [year]; and status (STATUS) is not reported as injection.

To account for very old wells with installation and abandonment pre-dating DrillingInfo coverage, EPA developed an independent estimate of abandoned wells existing in 1975 through reviewing historical records. The DrillingInfo data set is likely relatively complete beginning ca. 1975, but sparsely populated before this timeframe.

Where available (e.g., for Texas), EPA used data from state online databases containing historical drilling records by year and production type. EPA also compiled estimates such as those published in The Derrick’s Handbook of Petroleum5 and the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Mineral Resources of the United States Annual Yearbooks6. Based on historical records, EPA estimates approximately 2.56 million wells (characterized as oil, gas, or dry) had been drilled in the U.S. by 1973 (and could be assumed to be producing in 1975 if not shutdown/dry).

In 1975, approximately 630,000 oil and gas wells were operating in the U.S., based on USGS estimates7. Therefore, EPA estimates 1.93 million abandoned wells existed in 1975 (2.56 million – 630,000 = 1.93 million). See Appendix A for additional details on how this estimate was developed. Based on querying the DrillingInfo data set’s key date fields as described above, 776,000 wells in the DrillingInfo database could be considered abandoned as of 1975 (i.e., had stopped reporting production prior to 1975 or been installed prior to 1975 and never reported production). Comparing the counts (i.e. 1.93 million abandoned wells from analysis of historical records and USGS data, and 776,000 abandoned wells in the DrillingInfo database), EPA estimates that 1.15 million abandoned wells in the U.S. are not captured in the DrillingInfo-based methodology. EPA added this 1.15 million abandoned well count to the DrillingInfo-based total to develop a complete count of abandoned wells existing in each year of the time series, as shown in Section 4.

For the most recent year of the 2018 GHGI time series (year 2016), the DrillingInfo query approach would likely overestimate abandoned well counts, because many wells might be spud and not reporting production—not because they are dry/abandoned, but due to the time required for completion. Therefore, EPA used year 2015 abandoned well counts as a surrogate estimate for year 2016, and will implement a similar approach in future GHGIs (use the next-to-most-recent year as a surrogate for the most recent year).

After developing a total count of abandoned wells, EPA then separated the total abandoned well population into subcategories based on plugging status to assign appropriate EFs (as discussed in Section 2). Considerations toward plugging status assignment are discussed further in Section 3.2.

Lastly, EPA separated the abandoned well population into state groupings to assign region-specific EFs, as discussed in Section 2. Both the historical data sets and the DrillingInfo data set provide counts at a state level which are used to develop activity data for such an approach.

3.2 Plugging Status Assignment
EPA considered several data sources to generate the estimated split between plugged and unplugged abandoned well counts for each year.

5 The Derrick's Handbook of Petroleum: A Complete Chronological and Statistical Review of Petroleum Developments From 1859 to 1898 (V.1), (1898-1899) (V.2)
6 https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/usbmmyb.html
7 http://images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs2/MineralsYearBk/MinYB1975v1/reference/econatres.minyb1975v1.gkoelling.pdf (Table 6) and http://images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs2/MineralsYearBk/MinYB1975v1/reference/econatres.minyb1975v1.wharper.pdf (Table 10)
April 2018

Townsend-Small et al. offer limited observations that might be considered a “snapshot” of plugging status based on wells encountered for testing in year 2015 in the eastern and western U.S. As shown in Table 2 above, 50 percent of the 12 eastern wells tested were plugged; and 90 percent of the 126 western wells tested were plugged. The Kang et al. 2016 Pennsylvania study observed that of the 88 wells sampled, 40 percent were plugged. For both studies, due to the relatively small sample size compared to the national abandoned wells population and other factors of study design (e.g., certain wells could not be located based on records, and certain wells could not be physically accessed), other data sets or approaches might better represent the national population split between plugged and unplugged for purposes of developing GHGI estimates.

For the 2018 GHGI, EPA used status codes in the DrillingInfo database to split the population of abandoned wells into the plugged and unplugged categories. The DrillingInfo database contains the reported status for nearly 3.6 million wells. The status code is updated on an ongoing basis as reported to states (i.e., is not modified or standardized by DrillingInfo); the definition of a given status code might vary by state. As of early 2017, over 95 percent of well records in the DrillingInfo database report the status codes identified in the left-most column of Table 4. EPA identified status codes assumed to represent abandoned wells (e.g., inactive, P&A, abandoned, shut in, plugged), then assigned the count of wells reporting each such code as plugged or unplugged. The right-most column of Table 4 indicates assigned plugging status using an approach that considers wells with the status codes “P&A (plugged and abandoned)” and “PLUGGED” to be plugged. EPA continues to seek feedback on how to assign plugging status, particularly for codes with * in this column; as a default approach, EPA currently assigns "unplugged" status to these codes.

Table 4. DrillingInfo Status Codes Reported as of Early 2017 Status Code
Number of Wells
(millions)
Percent of All
Wells in
DrillingInfo
Abandoned Well
Assigned Plugging
Status
INACTIVE 1.5 42% Unplugged*
ACTIVE 0.9 27% n/a
P&A (plugged and abandoned) 0.7 20% Plugged
DRY 0.1 3% Unplugged*
ACTIVE INJ (active injection) 0.07 2% n/a
ABANDONED 0.03 1% Unplugged*
EXPIRED PERMIT 0.03 1% n/a
SHUT IN 0.02 1% Unplugged*
PLUGGED 0.02 1% Plugged
All other codes 0.1 1% *
* EPA seeks stakeholder feedback on assigning as plugged or unplugged. n/a – Status code does not indicate likely abandonment.

This approach allowed EPA to approximate the split representing the most recent time series year. Using the assigned plugging status values shown in the last column of Table 4, 69 percent of abandoned wells are considered unplugged, and 31 percent of abandoned wells plugged, in year 2016. Since this data set likely does not include the oldest wells in the U.S., this value might over-estimate the fraction of the well population that is currently plugged. Because this approach is based on the most recent available state data as compiled by DrillingInfo, it reflects impacts of state- or industry-led plugging efforts (e.g., orphaned well plugging programs8), assuming that plugging status is generally kept up to date in state databases.

8 Examples include California's Idle and Orphan Well Program; Louisiana's Oilfield Site Restoration Program; Michigan's Orphan Well Program; Ohio's Orphan Well Program; Pennsylvania's Abandoned and Orphan Well Plugging Program.

April 2018

Regarding the status code “INACTIVE” in the DrillingInfo database, the vast majority of wells reporting this code are not included in the GHGI active well count data. Some wells with INACTIVE status might also report production within a given calendar year, and therefore be counted in the GHGI as active wells. However, the current methodology presented in this memo avoids double counting of wells between the abandoned wells and the active wells categories in the GHGI. The methodology discussed here for activity data relies on the DrillingInfo status field only for estimating the abandoned wells population split between plugged and unplugged. The approach discussed in this memo to develop national estimates of abandoned wells excludes any wells that report production within the given year. The current GHGI estimates emissions from wells that report production within a given year. Therefore, implementing the GHGI update as described in this memo does not result in doublecounting of wells as both active and abandoned.

The National Petroleum Council (NPC) Paper #2-259, released in 2011, describes the historical evolution of plugging approaches and effectiveness. Oil and gas drilling in the U.S. began in Pennsylvania in 1859, and 1893 in Texas. For decades, regulations regarding plugging did not exist. Over time, states began instituting guidance and regulations regarding plugging; but in the meantime, wells were being drilled with very limited documentation of locations, etc. Regulations grew more stringent in the 1950s, requiring cement for sealing the producing intervals and the top of the wellbore. Prior to the 1950s, thousands of wells were left unplugged or ineffectively plugged (e.g., using very little cement). In the 1970s, regulations developed further to focus on environmental protection.

According to NPC, “modern regulatory standards in all U.S. jurisdictions require specific provisions for plugging and documenting oil and natural gas wells before they are abandoned. Most wells are still plugged with cement using methods and materials developed in the 1970s.”
To develop estimates for fraction of wells plugged in each year of the 1990-2016 time series, EPA developed an assumption that in 1950, all abandoned wells were effectively unplugged (based on the above information on historical practices), applied the percentage of wells plugged (31 percent) in 2016 developed from the DrillingInfo analysis, and applied linear interpolation for 1990-2015. While various programs and efforts have identified and plugged some abandoned wells, due to the estimated order of magnitude of these very old wells (approximately 2 million), most of this population might still be unplugged or ineffectively plugged. This assumption is generally supported by the DrillingInfo analysis discussed above (two-thirds of abandoned wells are unplugged as of 2016).

4. 2018 GHGI Estimates of Methane from Abandoned Wells
Table 5 shows estimates of total abandoned wells developed by querying the DrillingInfo data set and incorporating an assessment of historical data sources, as described in Section 3.1.

Table 6 shows estimates of abandoned well counts by production type. EPA allocated the total abandoned well counts shown in Table 5 to gas and oil production categories to support incorporation into the GHGI natural gas and petroleum systems source categories, respectively, using the following methodology:
• The abandoned wells not included in the DrillingInfo database (i.e., counted based on review of historical data sources) are reported by production type within the historical data source—as gas, oil, or dry. EPA assigned gas wells as gas wells, and oil wells as oil wells (as data are not consistently available to assign production type using the GOR-based method used for wells in the GHGI). • For wells resulting from the DrillingInfo query surrounding date of last production, EPA applied the existing GHGI convention to analyze the cumulative reported production from each well—if the ratio of

9 https://www.npc.org/Prudent_Development-Topic_Papers/2-25_Well_Plugging_and_Abandonment_Paper.pdf April 2018

cumulative gas to oil production exceeded 100 mcf/bbl, EPA counted the well as gas; otherwise, it was counted as oil.
• For wells resulting from the DrillingInfo query to count wells reporting spud date but no production, EPA assigned these wells as “dry.”
• Lastly, for the total count of “dry” wells in a given year (from historical data sources and DrillingInfo), EPA allocated such wells to gas and oil categories based on the split already calculated for such year.

Table 7 shows estimates of abandoned well counts by production type and plugging status, using the approach described in Section 3.2 (assuming 100 percent unplugged in 1950, 69 percent unplugged in 2016, and interpolation to assign the split in intermediate years).

Table 8 shows estimated emissions from abandoned wells across the time series once region-specific activity allocation and EFs are applied; "Appalachian" EFs (Table 3) apply to abandoned wells in the Appalachian Basin region (within Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Kentucky, and Tennessee), while Townsend-Small "entire U.S." EFs apply to all other abandoned wells. Between 1990 and 2016, 28–30% of abandoned gas wells, and 23–26% of abandoned oil wells, are estimated to be located in Appalachia.

April 2018

Table 5. Estimates of Total Abandoned Wells Over the GHGI Time Series (millions) Year '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 DrillingInfo (Raw) 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.52 1.54 1.57 1.59 1.61 1.63 1.65 1.68 1.70 1.73 1.76 1.79 1.82 1.85 1.90 1.96 1.96 Not included in DrillingInfoa 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 Totalb 2.37 2.40 2.43 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.55 2.57 2.60 2.63 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80 2.83 2.85 2.88 2.91 2.94 2.97 3.00 3.05 3.11 3.11 a – Based on assessment of historical data sources including Derrick’s Handbook of Petroleum and the USGS Mineral Resources of the United States Annual Yearbooks, as described in Section 3.1.
b – Previous rows show rounded values; totals shown may not equal sum.

Table 6. Estimates of Total Abandoned Wells Over the GHGI Time Series, by Production Type (millions) Year '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 Totala 2.37 2.40 2.43 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.55 2.57 2.60 2.63 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80 2.83 2.85 2.88 2.91 2.94 2.97 3.00 3.05 3.11 3.11 Gasb 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.55 Oilb 2.05 2.07 2.10 2.12 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.22 2.24 2.26 2.30 2.31 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.38 2.39 2.41 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.47 2.49 2.51 2.52 2.56 2.56 a – Rounded values; totals shown may not equal sum of rows below. b – Including allocated dry hole counts.

Table 7. Estimates of Plugged and Unplugged Abandoned Wells Over the GHGI Time Series, by Production Type Year '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 Total (millions)a 2.37 2.40 2.43 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.55 2.57 2.60 2.63 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80 2.83 2.85 2.88 2.91 2.94 2.97 3.00 3.05 3.11 3.11 Unplugged (%) 81% 81% 80% 80% 79% 79% 79% 78% 78% 77% 77% 76% 76% 75% 75% 74% 74% 73% 73% 72% 72% 72% 71% 71% 70% 70% 69% Plugged (%) 19% 19% 20% 20% 21% 21% 21% 22% 22% 23% 23% 24% 24% 25% 25% 26% 26% 27% 27% 28% 28% 28% 29% 29% 30% 30% 31% Gasb(millions) 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.55 Unplugged 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.38 Plugged 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 Oilb(millions) 2.05 2.07 2.10 2.12 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.22 2.24 2.26 2.30 2.31 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.38 2.39 2.41 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.47 2.49 2.51 2.52 2.56 2.56 Unplugged 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.76 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.78 1.77 Plugged 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.78 0.79 a – Rounded values; totals shown may not equal sum of rows below. b – Including allocated dry hole counts. Rounded values; totals shown may not equal sum of rows below.

Table 8. Estimates of Abandoned Well CH4 Emissions over GHGI Time Series (MMT CO2e) Year '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 Totala 6.50 6.54 6.58 6.62 6.65 6.68 6.71 6.73 6.76 6.79 6.84 6.85 6.86 6.87 6.87 6.88 6.88 6.89 6.90 6.92 6.94 6.95 6.97 7.01 7.06 7.156 7.11 Gas 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.25 1.30 1.37 1.36 Oil 5.60 5.63 5.66 5.68 5.71 5.73 5.74 5.76 5.78 5.80 5.84 5.84 5.84 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.82 5.81 5.80 5.79 5.78 5.77 5.77 5.76 5.76 5.79 5.75 a – Rounded values; totals shown may not equal sum of rows below.

April 2018

5. 2018 GHGI Estimates of CO2 from Abandoned Wells
CO2 emission estimates for select time series years are published in EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016 (April 2018). EPA developed abandoned well CO2 EFs using the CH4 EFs and an assumed ratio of CO2-to-CH4 gas content, similar to the approach used to calculate CO2 emissions for many sources in Petroleum Systems and Natural Gas Systems. For abandoned oil wells, EPA used the Petroleum Systems default production segment associated gas ratio of 0.020 MT CO2/MT CH4, which was derived through API TankCalc modeling runs. For abandoned gas wells, EPA used the Natural Gas Systems default production segment CH4 and CO2 gas content values (GRI/EPA 199610, GTI 200111) to develop a ratio of 0.044 MT CO2/MT CH4.

6. 2018 GHGI Uncertainty Estimate for Abandoned Wells
The development of the uncertainty range surrounding abandoned wells emissions estimates is documented in EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016 (April 2018). To characterize uncertainty surrounding estimates of abandoned well emissions, EPA conducted a quantitative uncertainty analysis using the IPCC Approach 2 methodology (Monte Carlo simulation technique). EPA used Microsoft Excel's @RISK add-in tool to estimate the 95 percent confidence bound around total methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells, then applied the calculated bounds to both CH4 and CO2 emissions estimates for each population. The @RISK add-in provides for the specification of probability density functions (PDFs) for key variables within a computational structure that mirrors the calculation of the inventory estimate. EPA used measurement data from the Kang et al. (2016) and Townsend-Small et al. (2016) studies to characterize the CH4 emission factor PDFs. For activity data inputs (e.g., total count of abandoned wells, split between plugged and unplugged), EPA assigned default uncertainty bounds of +/- 10% based on expert judgment.

The results presented below in Table 9 provide the 95 percent confidence bound within which actual emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells are likely to fall for the year 2016, using the recommended IPCC methodology.

Table 9. Quantitative Uncertainty Estimates for CH4 and CO2 Emissions from Abandoned Wells (MMT CO2e and Percent)
Source Gas
Year 2016
Emission
Estimate
(MMT CO2e)
Uncertainty Range Relative to Emission Estimate
Lower Bound
(MMT CO2e)
Upper Bound
(MMT CO2e)
Lower Bound
(%)
Upper Bound
(%)
Abandoned oil wells CH4 5.8 1.0 18.1 -83% +215%
Abandoned gas wells CH4 1.4 0.2 4.3 -83% +215%
Abandoned oil wells CO2 0.005 0.001 0.015 -83% +215%
Abandoned gas wells CO2 0.007 0.001 0.022 -83% +215%

10 GRI/EPA (1996) Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry. Prepared by Harrison, M., T. Shires, J. Wessels, and R.

Cowgill, eds., Radian International LLC for National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-96-080a. 11 GTI (2001) Gas Resource Database: Unconventional Natural Gas and Gas Composition Databases. Second Edition. GRI01/0136.

April 2018

7. Additional Considerations

7.1 Emission Factors
Recent studies summarized in this memorandum suggest additional considerations (listed below) regarding the representativeness of the data used to develop EFs. EPA will review additional data relevant to these research questions as data emerge.
• What is the impact of nearby production or storage on emissions from abandoned wells? • Are average emissions rates from abandoned wells in unstudied major production areas in the U.S. (e.g., Texas) similar to those in studied areas?
• What further subcategorization (e.g., well plugging timeframe, well type) is appropriate for EF development?
• How do methane flow rates from abandoned wells vary over long periods of time? Regarding the last consideration above, for purposes of developing an estimate in the GHGI, EPA currently assumes that abandoned wells leak over long periods of time at relatively steady rates, based on available data. In the Townsend-Small et al. data set, 6 out of 138 wells were found to have measurable emissions in 2015. Based on available records, three such wells were completed prior to the 1950s, and therefore likely became abandoned several years, or even decades, prior to the TownsendSmall et al. measurement campaign (the state does not have a record of the last reported production for these wells). This supports an assumption that even very old wells (that produced in the late 1800s and early 1900s) might continue to leak over long periods of time, if left unplugged or ineffectively plugged.

Kang et al. 2016 conducted repeat measurements over a time span of two years and observed that flow rates of high emitters are sustained through that period of time.

7.2 Activity Data
Recent studies also suggest additional considerations (listed below) regarding the representativeness and completeness of activity data estimates that might be used in the GHGI. EPA will review additional relevant data as they emerge.
• What is the magnitude of undocumented abandoned wells? • Should certain types of wells be included in the national count—for example, injection wells drilled for enhanced oil recovery, and dry wells?
• What data sources and methodology might be used to estimate national total activity for vented abandoned wells, such as the coal area wells measured in the Kang studies in Pennsylvania? Do other states have similar venting requirements as Pennsylvania?

8. Requests for Stakeholder Feedback
The EPA initially sought feedback on the questions below in the version of this memo released October 2017. The EPA discusses feedback received, and further planned improvements to the GHGI methodology, in Chapter 3.8 of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016 (April 2018). The EPA continues to welcome additional stakeholder feedback on these questions for potential updates to future GHGIs.

1. What additional data sources are available to estimate EFs for abandoned wells?

2. How might region-specific EFs be used to estimate national emissions?

3. What subcategories of abandoned wells should be represented in the GHGI (taking into account data availability and differences between emissions rates for subcategories). For example:

April 2018

o plugging status
o production type (e.g., oil, gas, dry, injection, other) o region (e.g., state or basin)
o unplugged wells abandoned while shut-in versus while orphaned (i.e., no responsible owner on record, usually applying to very old wells)
o other?

4. What additional data sources and methods are available to estimate the total population of wells abandoned prior to 1990 (considering that the production phase of many such wells likely pre-dates DrillingInfo coverage)?

5. What additional data sources or methodologies might be appropriate to estimate the total population of abandoned wells existing in each year of the time series (1990–2016)? o Section 3.1 discusses an approach in which certain DrillingInfo date fields are analyzed to count abandoned wells as of a given year (in particular, the reported date of spud/completion and of last production). A count of wells not included in the DrillingInfo data set is currently developed from historical data sources (based on review of Derrick’s Handbook of Petroleum, the USGS Mineral Resources of the United States Annual Yearbooks, and/or EIA historical drilling records). This value is added to the abandoned well counts developed from DrillingInfo. Activity data developed by this approach for various time series years are presented in Table 5. EPA seeks feedback on this approach. o What other data sources and/or methodologies might EPA consider?

6. For the most recent year of the 2018 GHGI time series (year 2016), the DrillingInfo query approach described in Section 3.1 might overestimate abandoned well counts, because many wells might be spud and not reporting production—not because they are dry/abandoned, but due to the time required for completion. Therefore, EPA currently uses year 2015 abandoned well counts as a surrogate estimate for year 2016, and plans to apply a similar approach in future GHGIs (use the next-to-most-recent year as surrogate for most recent year). EPA seeks feedback on this approach or other approaches to consider.

7. Are additional data sources or methodologies available to estimate the split between plugged and unplugged wells existing in each year of the time series (1990–2016)? o Section 3.2 discusses available data in the DrillingInfo database to characterize wells in recent year(s), an NPC 2011 paper to characterize wells in early years, and an interpolation approach that might be used. EPA seeks feedback on this approach, including on how might the DrillingInfo “Status” field be interpreted to indicate plugging status, considering the list of most commonly reported status codes described in Table 4. EPA currently implements an approach that identifies status codes that represent abandoned wells (e.g., inactive, P&A, abandoned, shut in, plugged), then assigns the count of wells reporting each such code as plugged or unplugged. The right-most column of Table 4 indicates assigned plugging status that considers wells with the status codes “P&A (plugged and abandoned)” and “PLUGGED” to be plugged. EPA seeks feedback on how to potentially improve accuracy in assigned plugging status, particularly for codes with * in this column. o What other data sources and/or methodology might EPA consider?

8. Based on the discussion of historical plugging effectiveness in Section 3.2, what year (e.g., 1950) might be appropriate to assume that zero percent of existing abandoned wells were effectively plugged (such an estimate would serve as a tie point for use in interpolation to develop plugged versus unplugged activity fractions)?

9. What data are available to answer the research questions posed in Section 7, regarding additional considerations for calculating emission estimates for this source? April 2018

10. Are there any additional ongoing or planned studies related to abandoned wells that may be incorporated to refine future GHGIs?

11. Are data sources and methods available to estimate EFs and activity data for related derelict infrastructure (e.g., flow lines)?
April 2018

Appendix A.

Development of independent estimate of abandoned wells existing in 1975 through reviewing historical records
Table A-1 shows estimates compiled from historical data sources of wells drilled in each state, by production type (including dry), from 1871 to 1973. Where available (e.g., for Texas), EPA used data from state online databases containing historical drilling records by year and production type. For most counts, EPA relied on estimates published in United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Mineral Resources of the United States Annual Yearbooks. Note that these state-level estimates were compiled for the purpose of developing a national-level total. In several instances, historical data sources presented counts for a combined set of states, and the table below attributes counts to one of the multiple states represented; therefore, the state-level totals shown below might be inaccurate for certain states, although the national totals would not be impacted. The righthand column of Table A-1 generally notes where this occurred.

Table A-2 shows estimates from USGS of wells producing in each state, by production type, as of 1975.

To develop an estimate of abandoned wells existing in 1975, EPA subtracted the total producing oil and gas wells as of 1975 from the total drilled by 1973 (wells drilled by 1973 were assumed to be producing by 1975, if not shutdown).
2,556,411 (wells drilled, see Table A-1) – 630,697 (wells producing, see Table A-2) = 1,925,714 abandoned wells in 1975.

April 2018

Table A-1. Wells Drilled by State and Production Type (1871-1973) State Gas Oil Dry Citation Notes
AK 56 66 559 State dataa
AL 33 512 121 State datab
AR 1,527 14,120 9,016 USGSc
State datad were also reviewed; USGS appeared to be
more complete.

CA 2,388 77,518 19,975 USGSc
CO 1,943 5,240 12,764 USGSc
Includes some UT, WY wells (states reported together
in USGS for certain years)
FL 0 214 445 State datae EPA analysis attributed O&G wells to oil.

IL 1,263 66,910 39,721 USGSc
IN 9,668 26,662 19,895 USGSc
Derrick's Handbookf data were also reviewed; USGS
appeared to be more complete.

KS 17,485 95,786 65,115 USGSc
KY 8,351 42,594 29,168 USGSc
LA 14,684 63,249 45,887 USGSc
MI 2,263 11,082 13,942 USGSc
MS 434 5,807 9,166 USGSc
ND 1 1,250 1,686 USGSc
NE 133 3,648 8,131 USGSc
MT 1,839 8,355 9,004 USGSc
NM 9,032 21,943 8,949 USGSc
NY 2,458 4,434 1,079 USGSc
Partial totals, some counts included in PA total (states reported together in USGS for certain years). Derrick's Handbookf data were also reviewed.

OH 24,515 101,447 32,974 USGSc
Partial totals, some counts included in PA total (states reported together in USGS for certain years). Derrick's Handbookf data were also reviewed.

OK 22,535 195,237 87,437 USGSc
State datag were also reviewed; USGS seemed more
complete.

PA 46,289 272,674 49,394 USGSc
Includes some OH, NY, WV wells (states reported
together in USGS for certain years). State datah and
Derrick's Handbookf data were also reviewed.

SD 0 41 344 USGSc
TN 121 380 855 USGSc
TX 79,716 447,527 277,630 State datai
,
USGSc
State datai where available, otherwise USGS.

UT 5 2 17 USGSc Partial totals, some wells included with WY and CO.

VA 321 34 135 State dataj
WV 28,951 26,094 11,727 USGSc
Partial totals, some counts included in PA total (states reported together in USGS for certain years).

WY 1,675 17,333 13,430 USGSc
Partial totals, some counts included in CO total (states reported together in USGS for certain years).

Subtotal 277,686 1,510,159 768,566
Total 2,556,411
a. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/publicdb.html b. Geological Survey of Alabama, Oil & Gas Board, https://www.gsa.state.al.us/ogb/ April 2018

c. United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Mineral Resources of the United States Annual Yearbooks, https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/usbmmyb.html
d. Arkansas Geological & Conservation Commission, "List of Oil & Gas Wells - Data From November 1, 1936 to January 1, 1955.", http://www.geology.ar.gov/pdf/IC-10%20SUPPLEMENT_v.pdf e. Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Oil and Gas Program, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/mines/oil_gas/index.htm f. The Derrick's Handbook of Petroleum: A Complete Chronological and Statistical Review of Petroleum Developments From 1859 to 1898 (V.1), (1898-1899) (V.2) g. "Oklahoma Oil: Past, Present, and Future." Oklahoma Geology Notes, Oklahoma Geological Survey v. 62 no. 3, 2002 pp .97-106
h. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Oil and Gas Reports - Oil and Gas Operator Well Inventory. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/oil_and_gas_reports/20297 i. Texas Railroad Commission, Oil and Gas Division, "History of Texas Initial Crude Oil, Annual Production and Producing Wells, Crude Oil Production and Well Counts (since 1935)." http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oilgas/research-and-statistics/production-data/historical-production-data/crude-oil-production-and-well-countssince-1935/ j. Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy, "Wells Drilled for Oil and Gas in Virginia prior to 1962.", Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/commercedocs/MRR_4.pdf.

April 2018

Table A-2. Producing Wells by State and Production Type in 1975 from USGS Data12 State Gas Oil
AK 61 205
AL 9 608
AR 1,128 7,308
AZ 1 28
CA 1,585 41,029
CO 1,662 2,450
FL 0 143
IL 41 23,373
IN 478 4,798
KS 8,865 41,945
KY 7,386 13,905
LA 9,182 27,734
MD 15 0
MI 209 3,655
MO 3 163
MS 248 2,237
MT 1,235 3,247
ND 18 1,994
NE 19 1,190
NM 10,352 13,715
NV 0 6
NY 900 4,975
OH 10,382 16,611
OK 9,769 71,576
PA 17,500 32,095
SD 20 38
TN 5 172
TX 26,184 160,603
UT 271 1,323
VA 186 7
WV 21,700 13,750
WY 950 9,450
Subtotal 130,364 500,333
Total 630,697

12 http://images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs2/MineralsYearBk/MinYB1975v1/reference/econatres.minyb1975v1.gkoelling. pdf (Gas wells, Table 6); and
http://images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRes/EFacs2/MineralsYearBk/MinYB1975v1/reference/econatres.minyb1975v1.wharper.p df (Oil wells, Table 10)
SANTA MARIA HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS TIA PEER REVIEW • SM HOLIDAY INN TIA PEER REVIEW • 12.15.2023 1

SANTA MARIA HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS TIA PEER
REVIEW
DATE: December 22, 2023
TO: Jiten Patel | Lotus Management Inc.

FROM: Jim Damkowitch & Daniel Block & Sylinda Villado | DKS Associates SUBJECT: Santa Maria Holiday Inn Express TIA Peer Review Project #P24559-000 This memorandum reviews and confirms the approach to address SB 743 as performed for the proposed Santa Maria Holiday Inn Express development in the City of Santa Maria. This review as performed in accordance with the standards of care, best practices, and established procedures in the traffic engineering profession including compliance with the City of Santa Maria’s VMT Analysis Procedures as well as state guidance on SB 743 implementation.

SB 743 VMT ANALYSIS REVIEW

VMT ANALYSIS
The TIA points out, OPR’s guidance does not specifically address hotels, but the City’s VMT Analysis Procedures (page 25) include hotel as an example of a retail land use:
“Retail VMT – Measure net VMT within boundary, and determine threshold based on net change. “Retail” uses include, but are not limited to, supermarkets, restaurants, gas stations, wineries, agriculture tourism, and hotels. Public and recreational uses such as parks, hospitals, libraries, and public services may also be assessed in this way, if needed.” While the City’s VMT Analysis Procedures include a screening threshold for local-serving retail projects smaller than 50,000 sq. ft. (the maximum size for screening recommended by OPR), the proposed project is stated to be 56,049 square feet. Given that hotel floor area does not emulate typical retail floor area in terms of trip generation of patrons, a trip generation to floor area correspondence assessment relating these two land uses was documented by ATE.

Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, the proposed project is estimated to generate 743 daily trips with 93 rooms at 56,049 square feet. Based on its trip generation characteristics, the proposed hotel would need to be equivalent to a retail center of 20,007 square feet to generate the same number of trips, which is below the City’s VMT screening threshold of 50,000 square feet (TABLE 1). Based on this comparison, the proposed Holiday Inn Express project meets the City’s VMT retail size screening threshold. Therefore, VMT analysis is not required.

Attachment 2
SANTA MARIA HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS TIA PEER REVIEW • SM HOLIDAY INN TIA PEER REVIEW • 12.15.2023 2
TABLE 1: EQUIVALENT SITE ESTIMATION
LAND USE ITE CODE UNITS a SIZE AVG. RATE

ESTIMATED

WEEKDAY DAILY
TRIP

GENERATION
HOTEL (PROPOSED) 310 Rooms 93 7.99 743

SHOPPING CENTER
(EQUIVALENT) 820 KSF GLA 20.07 37.01 743

SHOPPING CENTER
(MAXIMUM VMT

SCREENING THRESHOLD)
820 KSF GLA 50.01 37.01 1,851
a KSF GLA - Thousand Feet Gross Leasable Area
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Editon

PEER REVIEW FINDING
DKS supports the need to perform a hotel/retail trip generation to floor area correspondence assessment for the proposed Holiday Inn Express development and agrees that this analysis and finding was performed in accordance with the standards of care, best practices, and established procedures in the traffic engineering profession including compliance with the City of Santa Maria’s VMT Analysis Procedures.

ATTACHMENT C
Mitigation Monitoring Program

CITY OF SANTA MARIA

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING

PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME: HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONE AMENDMENT (GPZ2022-0002) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT (PD2022-0001)
APPROVAL DATE: ______________________________________
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).

ADMINISTRATION
The City of Santa Maria (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for the adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP). The applicant, Lotus Management, Inc. is responsible for implementation of the MMP, in coordination with the City and other identified entities.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a), a public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation. The City may delegate responsibility for verifying and documenting compliance with the MMP to Lotus Management, Inc. as coordinator of the project and its construction, and Lotus Management, Inc. will be responsible for compliance. However, until mitigation measures have been completed, the Lead Agency remains responsible for ensuring that the implementation of the measures occurs in accordance with the program.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table is structured to enable quick reference to mitigation measures and the associated monitoring program based on the environmental resource. The numbering of mitigation measures correlates with numbering of measures found in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Mitigation Monitoring Program
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
Air Quality
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. 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.

Place the
mitigations on the
Grading Permit and
Building Permit
Plans.

Property owner
monitoring.

At the time of
application for
building permits for
development on the
project site.

Prior to and during
construction.

Applicant, Property
Owners, City
Community
Development
Department.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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.
g. 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.

Equipment Emissions Control Measures
During project grading and construction, the applicant shall adhere to the following measures to reduce NOX and PM2.5 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.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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.

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.)
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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 label 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.

Biological Resources
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 preconstruction 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-ofsight issues. Surveys shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist.

Identification of
specified measures
on project
development plans.

Property owner
monitoring.

The applicant shall
retain a qualified
biologist if
construction and
related activities
are between
February 1st
through September
1 st
.

Prior to issuance of
any grading or
development
permits for future
development within
the project site.

Applicant, Property
Owner, Biologist,
City Community
Development
Department
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
Surveys shall be conducted no less than two weeks prior to any construction activities. If no active nests are located, grounddisturbing construction activities can proceed, and no further mitigation will be required. If active nests are located, then all construction work 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.

Cultural Resources
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, Submittal of
monitoring/evaluati
on reports (if any).

Prior to issuance of
any grading or
development
permits for future
development within
the project site.

City Community
Development
Department.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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 provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. These actions would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Throughout the
duration of ground
disturbing activities.

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.

Submittal of
monitoring/evaluati
on reports (if any).

Prior to issuance of
any grading or
development
permits for future
development within
the project site.

Throughout the
duration of ground
disturbing activities.

City Community
Development
Department.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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 the 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.

Note the provisions
on the construction
plans.

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Monitoring
throughout
construction.

Applicant, City
Community
Development
Department.

Noise
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.

Note the provisions
on the construction
plans
Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Monitoring
throughout
construction.

Applicant, City
Community
Development
Department.

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 Note the provision
on the construction
plans
Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Monitoring
throughout
construction
Applicant, City
Community
Development
Department
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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.

Tribal Cultural Resources
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 Note the provisions
on the construction
plans.

Prior to issuance of
any grading or
development
permits for future
development within
the project site.

Throughout the
duration of ground
disturbing activities.

Applicant, City
Community
Development
Department.

Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Parties
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.

Attachment D – Existing and
Proposed Land Use and Zone
District Maps
Existing General Plan Map Land Use Designation

Proposed General Plan Map Land Use Designation
Existing Zone District
Proposed Zone District

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT F

CITY OF SANTA MARIA

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PLANNING DIVISION  110 SOUTH PINE STREET ROOM 101  SANTA MARIA, CA 93458  805.925.0951 X 2244

ATTACHMENT G
PERMIT NO. PD2022-0001___________________________________

APPROVAL DATE March 5, 2024____________________________________________ PROJECT NAME Holiday Inn Express Planned Development Permit________________ APPLICANT/OWNER Prakash Patel, Lotus Management, Inc./ Anand Enterprises_________ ADDRESS/LOCATION 2000 Block of Roemer Court (APN 128-003-047 & 128-003-048) DESCRIPTION A Planned Development Permit (PD2022-0001) for Lotus Management, Inc. to construct a 4-story, 93 room hotel on a 2.13-acre site in a PD/C2 (Planned Development/General Commercial) district. ____________

FINDINGS
The City Council hereby approves the following project in accordance with the application submitted and hereby makes the required findings in accordance with Section 12-35.203 the Municipal Code, including the following:

A. That the project meets the vision, intent, and requirements of the General Plan.

The purpose of the Community Commercial General Plan Land Use designation as described on page LU-18 of the City’s General Plan Land Use section is, “To include the majority of retail uses outside the central core, particularly along the lineal development corridors which have emerged. The majority of these uses would be geared to the area-wide market.” The project meets the vision, intent, and requirements of the General Plan because it would be located within a designation meant to provide more flexibility in regard to the types of commercial uses that could be developed at the site including a proposed hotel.

B. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate the use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly adapt such use with the land and uses in the vicinity because, the project is designed to comply with the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code standards for the PD/C-2 zone, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, setbacks, building height and vehicular access. The site is adequately sized to accommodate the proposed commercial use, and the construction of the hotel would adapt with the land and uses in the vicinity which includes a similar land use pattern of hotel development as well as some less intensive industrial development.

C. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quality and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use because the proposed construction of the project would not lead to PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 2 -
inadequate street and highway conditions. A traffic and circulation study was prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) in 2021 for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change associated with this project. The City of Santa Maria General Plan Circulation Element states that a Level of Service (LOS) D or better is acceptable for roadway and intersection operations. The traffic study determined that the existing area intersections operate within acceptable LOS ranges. The same determination was also made for the existing plus project conditions and cumulative project conditions with no changes to the LOS at the area intersections requiring mitigation to meet the City’s acceptable LOS requirements.

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. 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.”.

Furthermore, the City completed equivalent local-serving retail site estimates. The hotel proposal would be the approximate equivalent of a 20,590 square-foot shopping center which falls within the local-retail screening criteria of less than 50,000 square-feet per City Environmental Procedures.

D. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect upon abutting property as the construction of the hotel development and the establishment of the commercial use would be self-sustained by providing adequate on-site parking in an area of the City that has established commercial development of a similar scale. No land use conflicts would be established as identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (Goal L.U-.7) because the project site is either the same Land Use designation as proposed by the project or is designated for adjacent to development and zoning that is of less intensive industrial type and not heavy industrial.

E. That the establishment, maintenance and/or conducting of the use for which the planned development review is sought will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; nor shall the use be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development because the construction of the commercial project and the establishment of such use would adapt with the land and uses in the vicinity. The project would provide PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 3 -
adequate space for setbacks, parking and landscaping to ensure no nuisances would be created by the establishment of the project. The conditions of approval and development standards required for this project address alleviate any potentially adverse impacts that could result from the proposed use. Therefore, the project would be compatible with the adjoining land uses and would not be more obnoxious or detrimental to the health of the public than any of the uses established at the project area, or any of the uses listed in the PD/C-2 section of the Municipal Code.

F. That the conditions stated in the decision are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.

G. The proposed modification(s) are otherwise consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and applicable Specific Plans. No modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

H. The project includes superior design elements that mitigate or compensate for any potential impact of the proposed modification(s) on the surrounding area. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards in the Municipal Code and no modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

I. The proposed modification(s) are essential to the design of the project. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards in the Municipal Code and no modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

J. The proposed modification(s) have been minimized to the maximum extent possible consistent with Subsections (a) through (c) of Section 12-35.203 of the Municipal Code. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards in the Municipal Code and no modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

K. That the environmental impacts of the project are adequately reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Holiday Inn Express General Plan Land Use and Zone Amendment (GPZ2022-0001) and there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment. There is no substantial evidence in the whole record before the City Council supporting a fair argument that the project as described in the MND will produce the conditions as provided in Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines under which a Negative Declaration must be recirculated for public review. No further environmental review is required.

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 4 -

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The project is approved subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Community Development Department

PLANNING DIVISION

1. Project Description. The permittee shall comply with the project description, plan set entitled Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites consisting of 17 pages dated December 4, 2023, and Conditions of Approval of this permit. Any changes from the project description, Plan Set, or conditions may require a permit amendment.

Contact the Planning Division prior to changing anything described on the Plan Set or in the project description.

2. Color and Materials. A sample of all paint colors and materials to be used on the project site shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review for consistency with City Council approval prior to issuance of building permits. Paint colors shall be provided in the form of paint chips.

3. Permit Effectuation. This permit will become effective 30 days after the second reading of the Ordinance that amends the zoning designation of the subject site to the PD/C-2 (Planned Development/General Commercial) zoning district. If that Ordinance does not take effect, this Planned Development Permit shall be null and void.

4. Flood Control District Facilities. The development, uses or operations approved under this Planned Development Permit shall not encroach into Flood Control District facilities, unless such use of said facilities is agreed upon by the District.

5. Architectural Elements. All architectural elements such as parapet walls, tower features, and architectural features shall include architectural details on all sides to provide 360-degree architecture and eliminate the appearance of a false façade.

6. Parking Area. 102 parking spaces are required, and 119 spaces are provided. The off-street parking area and access shall be paved and double striped in accordance with City parking standards. The parking area shall be maintained and regularly resealed and restriped. Please note that a building permit is required for restriping. The striping shall be visible at all times and the parking area shall be void of potholes and depressions.

7. Bike Racks/Storage. Bike racks and/or storage shall be installed. The location, design and number shall be approved by the Planning Division during the building permit review process.

8. Trash Enclosure. Each trash receptacle shall be stored in an enclosure. The final development plan submitted for the building permit shall specify size and location of all trash collection areas and the enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plan. The location and design shall be approved by the PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 5 -
Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. The trash enclosure shall meet City Standards as well as be designed in keeping with the architecture and style of the project.

Trash areas that are located adjacent to parking spaces shall be set back a minimum of ten feet to provide sight distance for automobiles backing out of the parking space.

9. Ongoing Site Maintenance. The entire site shall be permanently maintained free of accumulated dirt and litter and in an otherwise neat and attractive manner and adhere to the requirements of the Santa Maria Municipal Code. Any graffiti on the property shall be promptly painted out. All landscaping areas on the property shall be permanently maintained with healthy, growing plant material, free from weeds.

Dead or dying plant material shall be replaced within one month of plant deterioration.

Failure to comply with this condition is a public nuisance and is subject to the adopted Citation Ordinance of the City of Santa Maria.

10. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan, which includes the size and species of plants, a layout of the irrigation system incorporating time clocks and/or moisture sensors, and a maintenance and watering schedule, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for plan checking and approval. The specific planting design of the landscape area and species of trees and plants shall be subject to approval of the Planning Division during the plan check review process. The landscape plan shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 12-44 of the Municipal Code, Landscape Standards. Backflow prevention devices shall be screened with plant material and located to maximize aesthetics.

11. Landscape and Tree Maintenance. The applicant shall develop landscape and tree maintenance standards that shall be provided to any landscape contractor hired to work on the site. The standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to first occupancy. The program shall require:

A. All on-site trees be properly maintained to retain a natural shape and size for the long-term health of the tree consistent with the natural growth pattern of its particular species and current ANSI A300 standards; B. Any tree topped, severely pruned or severely thinned out, subject to the determination of the Planning Division, shall require a large-size replacement.

C. Ground cover and shrubbery shall be regularly maintained and pruned in a manner that encourages healthy growth and flower production. Shrubs shall not be severely sheered or formed into unnatural shapes.

12. Tree Planting. The project shall provide the trees depicted on the landscape plan.

The trees species selected shall be subject to Planning Staff review according to City Council approval. Trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon size.

13. Landscape Irrigation Water Meter. A separate appropriately-sized irrigation meter PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 6 -
is required for new non-residential projects with irrigated landscape areas totaling 1,000 square feet or greater, and for new residential projects with irrigated landscape areas totaling 5,000 square feet or greater. If a sub-meter is proposed for irrigation, it shall be a privately held and maintained meter, provided by the applicant, installed after the main water meter.

14. Light Standards. All on-site lighting shall comply with the Municipal Code Performance Standards. A photometric plan is required at the building permit stage, subject to Planning Division approval. Parking lot light standards on the project site shall have a maximum overall height of 30 feet.

15. Utilities. All electrical, telephone, television and communication utility distribution and services wires shall be placed underground in accordance with Santa Maria Municipal Code Section 12-28.06.

The proposed locations of all transformer boxes and utility equipment shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. All transformer boxes and utility equipment shall be underground wherever feasible. If undergrounding is not possible, the equipment should be painted to match the surroundings, placed in inconspicuous areas out of public view, and screened with landscape plantings.

16. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment located on the roof of a building shall be completely screened. The height of the screening shall be as high, or higher, than the top of the mechanical equipment. The screening may be provided by an architecturally designed screen wall of solid material surrounding the equipment, or by the building wall parapet.

17. Serving of Alcoholic Beverages. Alcoholic beverages service requires the submittal of a separate Conditional Use Permit application, which shall be reviewed by, and subject to approval of, the Zoning Administrator.

18. Business License. A City business license is required.

19. Merger. Prior to issuance of the building permit, a property owner-initiated merger shall be filed with the Community Development Department to remove the existing lot lines on the property. The Notice of Merger shall be recorded prior to issuance of the occupancy permit.

20. Performance Standards. The requirements of the City's performance standards with respect to odor, noise, smoke, vibration and discharge of liquid and solid waste shall be maintained.

21. Health Department Requirements. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Santa Barbara County Health Department for review and approval prior to plans being submitted to the City for approval and issuance of a building permit.

22. AB 1600 Fees. AB 1600 fees apply to this project and are based on the fees in effect at the time the building permit is issued.

23. Agency Requirements. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 7 -
State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

24. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023100092) are hereby incorporated and attached for reference.

25. Indemnification. The applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably approved by the City), and hold harmless the City of Santa Maria and its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, proceedings, lawsuits, losses, damages, judgments and/or liabilities by third parties arising out of, related to, or in connection with the project application or to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, an approval of the project application by the City and any related environmental approvals, development approvals or project conditions. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, officials, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees that the City, its agents, officers, officials, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of his/her obligations under this provision.

BUILDING DIVISION

26. Construction Documents. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents. The project shall be plan checked under the California Building Codes (CBC) effective at the time of plan check application. The plans for the building of the project shall be the product of a registered design professional.

27. Solis Report. A soils report is required for the project.

28. Truss Calculations. The City of Santa Maria does not permit truss calculations and their design to be deferred and are required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. CBC 107.3.4.1

29. Accessible Features. The project site shall comply with CBC Chapter 11B for all accessible features, including but not limited to, routes, parking, restrooms.

30. Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprinklers shall be required. Fire sprinkler systems require separate review, approval and permit and are not within the scope of the building permit application for the structures.

Public Works Department

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

31. Building Plans. At time of building plan submittal, the developer shall identify the following items on the site or utility plan for the subject project:

A. Location and sizes of all proposed and existing water mains, sewer mains, water meters, water service lines, backflow prevention devices, private PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 8 -
sewer lateral connections, and storm drainage facilities in abutting streets or on the project site.

B. Location, quantity, and orientation of trash enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be constructed in conformance with current City standards and specifications.

C. All parcel lines and easements crossing the project site.

D. Locations and dimensions of all existing and proposed driveways and sidewalks
E. Location of waste grease containers. Waste grease containers shall not be placed within trash enclosure.

F. Location of existing and proposed fire hydrants
G. Required public improvements.

H. Limits of frontage improvements
FEES

32. Utilities Connection Fees. For all development projects already connected to the utility system, the water and wastewater fees shall be based solely on an increase in water meter size or a change in use and shall be calculated and collected prior to installation of the larger meter or making a change in use. The State Water Reimbursement Fee shall be collected concurrently with the Growth Mitigation Fee. The following fees are to be paid by the applicant and will be collected at time of request for connection at the Building Division, 110 South Pine Street, Suite 101.

A. Water Mitigation Fee: The fee is calculated based on the size of water meters (domestic, landscape, fire) serving the site. The fee shall be based upon the codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (Santa Maria Municipal Code (S.M.M.C.) Sections 8-15.01 through 8-15.15 and 8-15.19).

B. Wastewater Mitigation Fee: The fee is calculated based on the size of water meters (domestic) serving the site. The fee shall be based on the codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (S.M.M.C. Sections 8-

15.01 through 8-15.15 and 8-15.20).

C. State Water Reimbursement Fee: The fee is calculated based on the size of water meters (domestic, landscape, fire) serving the site. The fee shall be based on the codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance (S.M.M.C. Section 8-10.05.01).

33. Traffic Mitigation Fee. The traffic mitigation fee shall be paid by the applicant at time of occupancy. The fee is based on the size and proposed use of the project.

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 9 -
The final fee calculation is based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance (S.M.M.C. Sections 8-15).

Except as provided in the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council may consider allowing qualifying commercial and industrial development the ability to pay growth mitigation fees as outlined in the current fee schedule over a period of time. The maximum amount of time for payback shall be five (5) years. The payments shall be made yearly, and interest shall be paid. Interest calculations shall be based on the average annual interest rate for the Local Agency Investment Fund. Qualifying companies who wish to pursue this option shall sign an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and shall provide financial security guaranteeing payment.

STREET AND FRONTAGE CONDITIONS

34. Standard Driveway. Driveways shall be installed per City Standard Drawing RD12A/RD-13A and have ADA compliant pedestrian access. Driveways shall have minimum throat width of twenty-four feet (24). Show accessible path of travel either across driveway or behind driveway.

Nearest edge of driveway shall be located a minimum of five feet (5) from any above-ground utility such as streetlights or fire hydrants, and ten feet (10) from any street trees. A minimum twenty-foot (20) separation between driveways is required and the aggregate width of all driveways shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the property’s frontage along the street (S.M.M.C. Section 8-6.07).

35. Frontage Repair. The developer shall repair any cracked, broken, or uplifted curb, gutter, sidewalk, or alley within the project frontage. City Public Works Inspection staff will determine the extent of the frontage repair in the field prior to construction.

An encroachment permit will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for these repairs.

36. New Frontage Improvements. The developer shall be required to install full frontage improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, and landscaping wherever missing or required by the Public Works Department.

37. Sidewalk ADA Compliance. The developer shall remove and replace any sidewalk within the project frontage that does not meet ADA cross-slope requirements.

38. Intersections. Sight distance requirements shall be maintained at the intersection of any street, alley, or driveway improved for vehicular traffic per S.M.M.C.

Sections 12-27.02 and 12-27.03.

39. City Encroachment Permit. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Engineering Division prior to any work in public streets, alleys, or easements (S.M.M.C. Section 8-6.06).

40. Chip Seal. The Developer shall be required to restore asphalt pavement surface to the pre-development condition by placing chip seal compliant with City PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 10 -
Standards along the property frontage where trenching and utility cuts are required within City right-of-way. The chip seal shall be applied for the full width of the roadway for 50’ beyond all cuts within the asphalt pavement and the roadway striping shall be restored to pre-construction layout. The developer may elect to deposit an in-lieu fee to the City Public Works Department to perform the chip seal as a part of the City’s annual chip seal project.

WATER CONDITIONS

41. Composite Utility Plan. The following are depicted incorrectly on the entitlement set and shall be corrected on the Building Permit construction documents:

A. Hot tap shown for fire suppression connection. eight-inch connection on eight-inch public main shall be tee connection, requiring waterline shutdown.

B. Fire suppression connection callout labelled #22, which is for a 2” water service line. Inconsistent with actual connection.

C. Supply for domestic water and irrigation (callout #3) is shown behind back of sidewalk. This is not acceptable and would need to be direct connection to public main. Identify method of connection to public main, and location of supply line.

D. Relocated hydrant (callout #12): show new waterline connection to public main, method of connection to public main, required valve and thrust block, abandonment of existing line.

42. Privately Owned On-site Water Lines. Water lines for fire suppression shall be separated from water lines used for domestic water.

43. Fire Hydrants. The location, placement, and sizing of on-site water lines and fire hydrants shall be approved by the City Fire Department and Public Works Department.

44. Water Pipe Abandonment. Any existing water services not to be used by this development shall be abandoned by the developer at the mainline per City requirements.

45. Water Service Pipe Material Disclaimer. It is required that if your water service is made of polybutylene, you replace it with a City standard water service during the construction of your project.

46. Backflow Prevention. Reduced pressure principle (RP) type backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed on all domestic water services. The devices shall be installed near the property line before any branches by a licensed plumber according to City specifications and standard drawings. The devices shall be tested by a certified backflow prevention tester with test results submitted to the City’s Regulatory Compliance Specialist prior to final occupancy.

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 11 -

WASTEWATER CONDITIONS

47. Municipal Code. Discharge into the City’s sewer system shall comply with municipal code discharge restrictions and requirements (S.M.M.C. Section 8-12).

48. Additional Sewer Service. If additional plumbing fixtures are to be served by an existing lateral, the lateral size shall be evaluated by the developer’s engineer to determine if it is adequate for the increased sewage. If the lateral is smaller than what is necessary, the developer shall be responsible to install an additional sewer lateral per City and California State Health Agency standards.

49. Traps. Grease, oil, lint, hair and/or sand traps shall be provided and maintained in good working order at all times when, in the opinion of the Utilities Manager, they are necessary for the protection of the wastewater collection and treatment. (S.M.M.C. Section 8-12.413)

50. Sewer Pipe Abandonment. Any existing sewer services not to be utilized by this development shall be abandoned by the developer at the property line per City requirements.

51. Wastewater Discharge Permit. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit from the City. Contact the Utilities Department at (805) 925-0951, ext. 7270 for the permit application.

52. New Sewer Lateral. All sewer laterals shall be constructed in compliance with City Standard Drawing SS-14B. Sewer laterals shall be privately maintained infrastructure and connect to City infrastructure with a wye connection. Sewer laterals shall not tie in at a Public manhole.

STORM WATER CONDITIONS

53. Construction Storm Water Requirements (Site > 1 Acre). The developer shall obtain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading and encroachment permits.

The developer shall submit the SWPPP and file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The submittal is typically handled online through the Regional Board’s SMARTs website. (https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/).

54. SWPPP Review Fee. The developer shall submit a hard copy and an electronic copy of the SWPPP for review and approval prior to any building permit issuance.

A SWPPP review fee will be invoiced prior to approval.

55. Cost Estimate and Treasurer’s Trust. A detailed cost estimate for the installation and maintenance of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented as defined by the SWPPP will be generated from the City’s SWPPP review. Prior PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 12 -
to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit a cash deposit in the amount of the approved cost estimate to be held as a Treasurers Trust. The Treasurer’s Trust is intended to guarantee installation and maintenance of the required BMPs. The City will draw from this Treasurer’s Trust in the event the developer/contractor does not install or maintain the required BMPs. The Treasurer’s Trust shall be returned after Certificate of Occupancy is issued, minus any funds expended by the City to install/maintain the required BMPs on behalf of the developer/contractor.

56. SWPPP/Post-Construction Requirement Monitoring Encroachment Permit. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Office to cover inspection of the approved SWPPP and installation of required Post-Construction Requirements. Permit and inspection fees will be due when the permit is issued, and expiration of the encroachment permit will be based on the construction schedule identified in the SWPPP Notice of Intent. Time extensions will require additional funds to be provided to cover the additional inspections.

FLOOD CONTROL CONDITIONS

57. Santa Barbara County Flood Control District. Developer shall submit the hydrologic and hydraulic study, plans, and plan check fee for Santa Barbara County Flood Control District review. Santa Barbara County Flood Control District shall approve the studies and plans prior to building permit issuance.

58. Storm Drainage. The applicant shall provide on-site retardation facilities designed and constructed to Public Works and Community Development requirements prior to occupancy. The facilities shall be designed to accommodate the increased drainage water flow of a twenty-five (25) year storm event as a result of new development. Developer shall provide hydrologic and hydraulic study detailing assumptions, calculations, and design of the on-site retardation.

The applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by Public Works and Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Refer to the “Grading Plan Information” handout distributed by Community Development for guidance. The developer shall also submit the preliminary grading plan to the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The developer shall obtain Flood Control District certification on all new flood control facilities prior to bond release.

POST-CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER CONDITIONS

59. Post-Construction Storm Water. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that all new projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious area must follow the post-construction requirements (PCRs).

The Stormwater Technical Manual and further guidance on completing an SCP are available online (https://www.countyofsb.org/2324/New-Redevelopment).

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 13 -
A. The developer shall demonstrate project compliance with the PCRs by submitting a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) using the template provided in the Stormwater Technical Guide.

B. The SCP shall include a site plan, Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) sizing calculations, details of bioretention design, and dimensions of drainage management areas.

C. The SCP shall include an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan, detailing how the site and required post-construction improvements shall be maintained into perpetuity by the owner.

D. A SCP is required and shall receive preliminary approval from the Public Works Department prior to discretionary approval of the Planning Permit.

The developer shall resubmit the SCP with the Building Plan submittal for final review and approval. The resubmittal is to account for any necessary changes to the site plan between entitlement and construction.

Conceptually, this project has an acceptable preliminary SCP, however the following will need to be rectified prior to issuance of grading permits:
i. SCP is not consistent with site plans provided. SCP describes stormwater control measures (SCM) as bioretention areas. ii. SCMs are shown as drainage management areas (DMA) on site plan. DMAs and SCMs should not overlap. If a landscaped area, not to be constructed as a bioretention area, it should be identified as landscaping and self-retaining if they are low-lying areas that can receive runoff from other DMAs. SCM calculator allows for DMAs to drain to other DMAs if they are labelled as self-treating.

1. DMA 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11,15, 16, 19 appear to have potential as self-retaining landscaping areas.

2. Bioretention is a specific type of construction. See Stormwater Technical Guide Chapter 4, Section 7. Also see Figures 1-1, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5 and Appendix B.

3. This site does not appear to utilize bioretention and calculator sheet should be updated to reflect direct infiltration instead of bioretention for SCMs unless otherwise noted. If bioretention is proposed, include cross-section of bioretention facility proposed, identifying materials used are consistent with Figure 4-4.
iii. Narrative describing SCMs is also not provided in the SCP. iv. Site plan shows underground chambers, which are not included in stormwater control plan analysis. It is assumed these underground chambers are provided to meet City Grading and Drainage standards and Santa Barbara County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) requirements. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant will be required to:

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 14 -

1. Provide hydrologic and hydraulic study for underground chamber capacity. This study shall be reviewed and approved by both SBCFCD and the City of Santa Maria.

2. Provide dimensions and cross-sections for the proposed chambers.

3. Identify chamber discharge location and connection to public facilities.

E. Underground Chambers: For developments proposing to utilize underground chamber systems for the basis of stormwater management, the inlets, chambers, and any infrastructure that drains to the underground chamber system shall be cleaned, and video inspection provided to verify the performance of the underground chamber system wasn’t compromised during project construction activities. Cleaning and maintenance of this infrastructure shall be followed as per the manufacturer’s specifications and the approved stormwater operations and maintenance plan. All cleaning and maintenance activities shall be documented and provided to the Utilities Department, Regulatory Compliance Division on an annual basis.

F. As required by Section D, Field Verification of Post-Construction Stormwater Measures, of the California Central Coast Regional Water Board Resolution R3-2013-0032, Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Developments Projects in the Central Coast Region, the Developer shall secure a qualified third-party (registered professional engineer, geologist, architect and/or landscape architect) for purposes of inspection, verification, and certification of all Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) to ensure site design, water quality treatment, runoff retention, and/or peak management controls have been implemented in accordance with the Regional Water Board’s Post-Construction Requirements.

G. Grading plans shall include the following language:
i. Provide installation elevation by licensed surveyor to Public Works Department, Engineering Division within 7 calendar days of installation.
ii. Provide basin dimension and depth, including outlet structure cross section with elevations, signed and stamped by the Engineer of Record who prepared the Stormwater Control Plan to the Public Works Department, Engineering Division, within 7 calendar days of installation.
iii. Provide copy of invoice of installed gravel and bioretention soil media, along with photo-documentation of complete structure cross sections to Public Works Department, Engineering Division, within 7 calendar days of installation.

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 15 -
H. The following shall occur prior to final SCP approval:
i. Engineer of Record that prepares the SCP shall provide documentation of critical design elements in structures that are underground, buried, or otherwise hard to verify after installation.

Critical elements include elevations of the bottom of bioretention, top of gravel, and overflow structures.
ii. The property owner shall sign a Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measures Maintenance Agreement form with the City of Santa Maria. The form will be provided by Public Works after the final review of the SCP. The agreements shall be approved, signed, and attached to the property address prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy.

SOLID WASTE CONDITIONS

60. Multi-family and Commercial/Industrial Facilities. As mandated by state law, this development is required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal and recycling, the City of Santa Maria Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance No. 2021-10, Chapter 8-21, and Title 8, Chapter 8-11 of the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.

A. The developer shall submit a site plan identifying location(s) of each solid waste enclosure (“Enclosure”) to contain refuse and recycling (including single stream recycling and organics) bin(s)/container(s). The proposed location of each enclosure shall enable tenants to dispose of their refuse and recyclable materials safely and efficiently. The site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits.

B. All Enclosures shall be constructed per City standard drawing MS-16B.

C. The proposed quantity of Enclosure(s) for the subject site shall be reviewed and approved by the City.

D. The service frequency of each bin/container shall be determined by the City.

E. Enclosure(s) shall be oriented to provide vehicle fork-in access when possible.

F. In cases where Enclosure(s) are proposed to be installed abutting structures, the common wall shall be of a non-combustible masonry-type material with no openings for vents or windows.

G. Enclosure(s) shall be reserved exclusively for solid waste bin(s)/container(s) storage. Miscellaneous boxes, bins, racks, grease containers, etc., is not permitted within the enclosure.

H. The developer shall design site travel ways, entrance, and exit areas with sufficient space, free of obstructions (trees, oversized islands, etc.) to allow for Collection Vehicles to safely enter/exit the subject site to avoid damage PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 16 -
to site property or Collection Vehicles. See City standard drawing MS-16B for guidance.

I. The developer shall design all site vehicle travel ways to withstand loads imposed by Collection Vehicles.

J. The developer shall submit a truck turning template route for solid waste service area. The Collection Vehicles must be able to enter and exit the site to gain access to the Enclosure(s) with minimal backing. Collection Vehicles have an inside turning radius of thirty-eight (38) feet and an outside turning radius of fifty-five (55) feet. See City standard drawing MS-16B for guidance.

MODIFICATION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS

61. The Director of Public Works, Planning Commission, and Council reserve the right to modify these conditions if they deem it necessary to ensure compliance of the project with Chapter 8-6 of the S.M.M.C. (S.M.M.C. Section 8-6.09).

Fire Department

62. Key Box. A SMFD approved Knox key box shall be provided at the main entrance to each building/tenant space. The box shall contain all keys necessary to allow Fire Department access to all portions of the building or tenant space. The Knox box shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and placed so the bottom of the box is 60 inches above the adjacent grade.

63. Address Numbers. Numbers shall be clearly visible from the centerline of the roadway fronting the building and shall contrast with their background. Number height shall be a minimum of (12) twelve inches for commercial buildings.

64. Fire Lane Signs. "No Parking, Fire Lane" signs shall be posted at entrances. Signs shall be designed per SMFD Development Guidelines. All curbing in a designated Fire Lane or fire access way shall be painted red with “Fire Lane, No Parking” graphics stenciled every 100 linear feet or as otherwise designated on approved plans.

65. Fire Flow. Fire flow shall comply with CFC, Appendix B. The minimum fire flow for this project shall be 1,687.5 gallons per minute (based on Type V-A Construction, with fire sprinklers, as proposed).

66. Standpipe System. A standpipe system shall be installed in accordance with CFC Section 905.3. and submitted under a separate permit.

67. Fire Alarm System. A fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and NFPA 72 standards. The fire alarm system shall be certificated by Underwriters Laboratories or an equivalent nationally recognized organization.

A. Deferred submittal of fire alarm plans is required. The plans shall be wet stamped, on every sheet, by a registered FPE licensed in California.

PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 17 -
B. A Fire alarm system, at a minimum incorporating tamper switches on control valves and a Central Station service for the water flow alarm shall be installed for the fire sprinkler system.

68. Digital Site Plan. Prior to Fire Department final approval for occupancy, a site plan in a PDF format shall be provided with the following information if applicable:

On site hydrants, FDC/OS&Y locations, Standpipes, Sprinkler Control Valves (Riser), Fire alarm panel (FACP) Utilities (Gas/Electric/Water) Knox box/switch location(s), Ingress/Egress, Stairwells, Individual floor control valves, Individual floor plans including unit numbers, Laundry room(s), Elevator room(s), Roof access, Solar Panels and DC shutoff locations.

Recreation and Parks Department

69. Tree Species. Four City Street trees will be required on Roemer Court. Trees will be selected from the City approved suggested street tree list.

70. Tree Specifications. The street trees shall be 24-inch box in size and have a minimum caliper of 1.5 inches. The trees shall be planted six feet behind the sidewalk by a licensed landscape contractor in accordance with the plans and specifications of the Recreation and Parks Department. An irrigation system shall be provided for the trees.

71. Tree Bonding. Street tree bonding shall be for four tree plantings at $275 each totaling $1,100.00. Tree bonds are to cover a one-year establishment starting at issuance of the Occupancy Permit. Street tree requirements and bond amount are a maximum subject to change during building permit review. The tree bond is due at time of building permit issuance as a cash or surety bond delivered to Recreation and Parks at 615 S. McClelland St.

72. Tree Easement. A minimum ten-foot-wide tree planting easement shall be dedicated to the City to allow adequate space for planting and maintenance of street trees. The easement shall not have any impervious pavement other than vehicle and pedestrian approaches, nor be dual purposed as a storm water mitigation area. The applicant shall apply for the easement through the Public Works Department with necessary fees, a recent copy of a title report, closure calculations and sketch. The property owner is responsible for the upkeep of the trees, landscaping and irrigation within the easement area.

73. Tree Planting. Any nursery stock tree planted without inspection and approval by the Recreation and Parks Department shall be deemed defective and be removed by the person(s) responsible for the planting at their own expense. All plant material shall not be root bound or contain girdling roots. Street tree location(s) shall be approved onsite by the Special Districts Supervisor prior to installation.

74. Landscape Plans. The street tree easement shall be clearly identified on the planting and irrigation plans. Only street trees shall be planted in the easement PD2022-0001 MARCH 5, 2024

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
- 18 -
area. All other on-site private tree planting shall be planted behind the easement area.

The following shall be noted on the landscape plan: “the final locations of street trees shall be determined on-site by the Special Districts Supervisor. Twenty-fourhour notice is required for inspection prior to planting, (805) 925-0951 ext. 2346.

Installation shall be in accordance with Recreation and Parks Department specifications.”

75. Development Fees. Per the Municipal Code, several Recreation and Parks Development Fees may apply to this project.

A. Subdivision in Lieu $2,379.00
B. Residential Development Tax $185.00
C. Commercial Growth Mitigation $0.01/square foot
D. Single Family Growth Mitigation $2.18/ square foot
E. Multi-family/Senior Growth Mitigation $3.27/square foot Note: fees are reviewed annually and are subject to change.

76. Landscape District. This project will be included in the Northwest Landscape Maintenance District. The signed and notarized “Petition Requesting Annexation” form is due at time of building permit issuance. It can be returned to the Recreation and Parks Department, 615 S. McClelland, Santa Maria, CA 93454.

NOTES:

In accordance with Section 12-35.109 of the Municipal Code, this permit is not valid until the 15th calendar day following the issuance of the permit, providing no appeal is filed; or if an appeal is filed, this permit is not valid until the effective date of the final action on the appeal.

In accordance with Section 12-35.501 of the Municipal Code, the City may modify conditions of approval of the permit or may revoke the permit for non-compliance with any of the conditions of approval, or if any operations under the approved permit result in detriment to the public health, safety or welfare.

This permit will not be valid until the applicant and property owner have submitted signed acknowledgment of their consent to the conditions, in accordance with Section 12-35.501 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code, to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

In accordance with Section 12-35.501 of the Municipal Code, this permit shall become null and void if the development authorized is, or has been, unused, abandoned, discontinued, or development has not been commenced within a period of three (3) years. However, the approval body may consider extensions of time for additional periods of up to two (2) years each, for a maximum overall permit life of seven (7) years. A written request justifying the need and the appropriate filing fee filed with the Community Development Department shall be submitted prior to the expiration date.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions stated above may be cause for revocation or modification of this permit, in addition to any other penalties provided by law.

All conditions of approval are to be completed prior to occupancy unless otherwise stated, and are to be maintained in perpetuity.

A0.2
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

ATTACHMENT H
A0.3
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
B-B
A0.3
A-A
A0.3
B-B
A0.3
B-B
A0.3
A-A
A0.3
B
A0.3
C
A0.3
A
A0.3
A1.1
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA

FIRE PIT
GRILLS
A1.2
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
A1.3
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
A1.4
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
A1.5
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
A2.1
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
STC3 ACM1 STC4
STN
STC2 ACM1 STC4
STC4 STC5 STC1
STC4 ACM1
STC5
STC5
STN
STC1 STC4 ACM1 STC2
0000
STC5 ACM2 STN STC5 STC5
STC1
ACM1
STC1 STC1 STC1 STN STC1 STC5 STC1
STC1
STC1
P-1
STC3
STN STC1 STN ACM1 ACM2 ACM1
ACM1
STC5
STC4 STC3
ACM1
STC1 STN
F-1

ELEVATION LEGEND
KEYNOTES LISTED BELOW PERTAIN TO THE PLANS ON THIS SHEET ONLY.

NO. DESCRIPTION

ELEVATION KEYNOTES

PROVIDE BACKERBOARD AND POWER FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE 1" DUAL-PANE CLEAR GLAZING WINDOWS IN BRUSHED ALUMINUM

THERMALLY BROKEN FRAMES WITH THRU-WALL INTEGRAL PTAC

HVAC LOUVER
AUTOMATIC ENTRANCE SLIDER DOORS WITH TEMPERED GLASSALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR WITH TEMPERED GLASSHIGH-DENSITY FOAM SHAPE12" HIGH ALUMINUM BUILDING ADDRESS SIGNMETAL DOOR TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL COLORACCESSIBLE BEIGE (SW7036)VIRTUAL TAUPE (SW7039)ALABASTER (SW7008) STC1STC2STC3
ACM1 ALPOLIC MCU MICA CHAMPAGNE
STC4
DECORATIVE LIGHTING - EXP-1117 AND EXP-111810 FT. TALL FENCE WITH GATEBUILDING UP/DOWN LIGHTING

BUILDING SIGNAGE

1. MINIMUM 3/4" BACKERBOARD REQUIRED AT BUILDING SIGN
LOCATIONS. AREA SHOULD COVER ENTIRE LENGTH AND HEIGHT OFFASCIA OR SPACE AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING SIGN.

2. ELECTRICAL AND FINAL CONNECTION BY CONTRACTOR.

3. RACEWAYS/WIREWAYS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

4. PERMANENT ACCESS DOORS TO INTERIOR OF ALL PARAPETS

WHERE BUILDING SIGNS ARE LOCATED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
CONTRACTOR.

5. CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH AND CONNECT PRIMARY ELECTRICAL SERVICE INSIDE PARAPET WALL.

6. GUESTROOMS OR PUBLIC SPACES WITH SIGNAGE ON EXTERIOR

WALLS MUST HAVE ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS AND/OR REMOTE

TRANSFORMERS COORDINATED AND INSTALLLED PRIOR TO
CLOSING UP THE WALL.

CEILING AT PORTE COCHERE CEILING
3-COAT STUCCO WITH CONTROL JOINTSSUSPENDED ARCHITECTURAL METAL CANOPY

MECHANICAL LOUVERS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT

WALL COLOR
ROOKWOOD TERRA COTTA (SW2803)
P-1 PAINT TO MATCH STC5
STC5 ROOKWOOD DARK BROWN (SW2808)
F-1 "WROUGHT IRON" ALL-STEEL FENCING

STN BORAL STONE LEDGESTONE SOUTHWEST BLEND
ACM2 ALPOLIC COPPER
STC4STC5
ACM1
P-1 FASCIA AT PORTE COCHERE
A2.2
LOTUS MANAGEMENT INC.

ROEMER COURT

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA
STC3
F-1
STC4
STC4
STC5
STC1 STC6
STC2 STC1 STC1
STC4 STC5 ACM
STN
STC1 STC1 STC2
STC5 STN
STC1
P-1
ACM1 ACM2 ACM1 STN STC1 STN
ACM1
P-1 STC5
STC4 STC1
ACM1
STC1
STC1
STN
F-1

ELEVATION LEGEND
KEYNOTES LISTED BELOW PERTAIN TO THE PLANS ON THIS SHEET ONLY.

NO. DESCRIPTION

ELEVATION KEYNOTES

PROVIDE BACKERBOARD AND POWER FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNAGE 1" DUAL-PANE CLEAR GLAZING WINDOWS IN BRUSHED ALUMINUM

THERMALLY BROKEN FRAMES WITH THRU-WALL INTEGRAL PTAC

HVAC LOUVER
AUTOMATIC ENTRANCE SLIDER DOORS WITH TEMPERED GLASSALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOOR WITH TEMPERED GLASSHIGH-DENSITY FOAM SHAPE12" HIGH ALUMINUM BUILDING ADDRESS SIGNMETAL DOOR TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL COLORACCESSIBLE BEIGE (SW7036)VIRTUAL TAUPE (SW7039)ALABASTER (SW7008) STC1STC2STC3
ACM1 ALPOLIC MCU MICA CHAMPAGNE
STC4
DECORATIVE LIGHTING - EXP-1117 AND EXP-111810 FT. TALL FENCE WITH GATEBUILDING UP/DOWN LIGHTING

BUILDING SIGNAGE

1. MINIMUM 3/4" BACKERBOARD REQUIRED AT BUILDING SIGN
LOCATIONS. AREA SHOULD COVER ENTIRE LENGTH AND HEIGHT OFFASCIA OR SPACE AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING SIGN.

2. ELECTRICAL AND FINAL CONNECTION BY CONTRACTOR.

3. RACEWAYS/WIREWAYS ARE NOT ALLOWED.

4. PERMANENT ACCESS DOORS TO INTERIOR OF ALL PARAPETS

WHERE BUILDING SIGNS ARE LOCATED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
CONTRACTOR.

5. CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH AND CONNECT PRIMARY ELECTRICAL SERVICE INSIDE PARAPET WALL.

6. GUESTROOMS OR PUBLIC SPACES WITH SIGNAGE ON EXTERIOR

WALLS MUST HAVE ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS AND/OR REMOTE

TRANSFORMERS COORDINATED AND INSTALLLED PRIOR TO
CLOSING UP THE WALL.

CEILING AT PORTE COCHERE CEILING
3-COAT STUCCO WITH CONTROL JOINTSSUSPENDED ARCHITECTURAL METAL CANOPY

MECHANICAL LOUVERS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT

WALL COLOR
ROOKWOOD TERRA COTTA (SW2803)
P-1 PAINT TO MATCH STC5
STC5 ROOKWOOD DARK BROWN (SW2808)
F-1 "WROUGHT IRON" ALL-STEEL FENCING

STN BORAL STONE LEDGESTONE SOUTHWEST BLEND
ACM2 ALPOLIC COPPER
STC4STC5
ACM1
P-1 FASCIA AT PORTE COCHERE

...\22-11 SE-1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC.dg 5/24/2022 10:24:51 AM

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MARIA, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE POLICY MAP

AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT FOR HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, LOCATED AT THE
2000 BLOCK OF ROEMER COURT
WHEREAS, the applicant, Lotus Management, Inc. initiated a General Plan Land Use Amendment and Zone Change (GPZ2022-0001) to amend the General Plan Land Use Policy Map and Zoning Map FROM HCM (Heavy Commercial Manufacturing) land use designation and PD/CM (Planned Development/Commercial Manufacturing) zoning TO CC (Community Commercial) land use designation and PD/C-2 (Planned Development/General Commercial) zoning and a Planned Development Permit (PD2022- 0001) to construct a 4-story, 93 room hotel on a 2.13-acre site, herein referred to as the Project; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq., as amended, require the evaluation of environmental impacts of said projects; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B of the City Council Agenda Report for March 5, 2024, herein incorporated by reference) was prepared for said Project; the required notices were published and the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review, sent to every responsible agency with jurisdiction over the project, and placed in a public location; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City held a regularly scheduled public hearing on January 17, 2024, for the purpose of receiving evidence and considering the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, after considering all evidence, the Planning Commission, in Resolution No. 2825, recommended to the City Council the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B of the City of Santa Maria Council Agenda Report dated March 5, 2024), incorporated herein by reference for the Project; and
2 WHEREAS, there is no substantial evidence in the whole record before the City Council supporting a fair argument that the project as described in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, at the completion of the public hearing, the City Council duly considered all evidence presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B of the City of Santa Maria Council Agenda Report dated March 5, 2024, incorporated herein by reference) for the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Permit for the Holiday Inn Express, located at the 2000 Block of Roemer Court; and

3. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C of the City of Santa Maria Council Agenda Report dated March 5, 2024, incorporated herein by reference) for the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Permit for the Holiday Inn Express, located at the 2000 Block of Roemer Court; and

4. The records of these proceedings are located in the Planning Division of the City of Santa Maria, 110 South Pine Street #101, Santa Maria, California 93458; and

5. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Assistant City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.
3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of March 2024.

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
Interim City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MARIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE POLICY MAP FOR LOTUS MANAGEMENT, INC. (GPZ2022-
0001) ON 2.13-ACRES LOCATED AT THE 2000 BLOCK OF

ROEMER COURT FROM HCM (HEAVY COMMERCIAL

MANUFACTURING) TO CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)

FOR HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
WHEREAS, the applicant, Lotus Management, Inc. initiated a General Plan Land Use amendment and zone change (GPZ2022-0001) to amend the General Plan Land Use Policy Map and Zoning Map on a 2.13-acre property at the 2000 block of Roemer Court; and a Planned Development Permit (PD2022-0001) is on file to construct a 4-story, 93 room hotel, herein referred to as the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council authorize the filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holiday Inn Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq., as amended; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission made its recommendation in writing that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Policy Map of the City of Santa Maria for the Project site (Resolution No. 2826); and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on this amendment to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map by the City Council on March 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council made no substantial modification of the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map which had not been previously considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered and relied on the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, in making its decision on the amendment to the Land Use Policy Map of the City’s General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council finds that:
(a) The proposed project is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The purpose of the Community Commercial General Plan Land Use designation as described on page LU-18 of the City’s General Plan Land Use section is “to include the majority of retail uses outside the central core, particularly along the lineal development corridors which have emerged. The majority of these uses would be geared to the area-wide market.” The site location and the proposed hotel development are consistent with the Community Commercial Land Use description. The project meets the vision, intent, and requirements of the General Plan because it would be located along one of the ‘lineal development corridors’ ‘outside the central core’. The designation is meant to provide more flexibility in regard to the types of commercial uses that could be developed at the site including a proposed hotel; and (b) The proposed project would not significantly disrupt any of the various land uses in the vicinity because the Project will establish a commercial use compatible with the same commercial uses and intensity and land use pattern in the area. No land use conflicts would be established as identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (Goal L.U.7) because the project site is adjacent to development and zoning that is either the same Land Use designation as proposed by the project, or is designated for less-intensive industrial type uses; and (c) The types of general commercial uses permitted in the C-2 zone district are less intensive than the types of uses permitted in the CM zone district such as manufacturing and processing businesses, equipment rental, and wholesaling. The proposed C-2 zoning and CC land use designation will align the property with the existing properties zoned C2 adjacent to the site, and the existing hotels along the west side of Roemer Court. The proximity of the project site to the Broadway commercial corridor and Highway 101 interchange makes the project site a desirable location for travelers or tourists visiting the area.

Therefore, the proposed modifications are required for public necessity, convenience, and general welfare; and
(d) The proposed project is afforded the appropriate services and facilities in that all infrastructure is currently available to serve the project site because the project vicinity has been previously developed with infrastructure to accommodate commercial and industrial projects of a similar size including hotels in the project vicinity.

3. The City Council of the City of Santa Maria approves an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map for 2.13-acres FROM HCM (Heavy Commercial Manufacturing) TO CC (Community Commercial) as shown on Attachment D of the Council Agenda Report dated March 5, 2024, incorporated herein by reference.

4. The Director of Community Development, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to make corresponding changes on the Land Use Policy Map of the General Plan in conformity with this Resolution.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of March 2024.

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
Interim City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA,

CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR LOTUS
MANAGEMENT, INC. (GPZ2022-0001) ON 2.13-ACRES LOCATED AT THE 2000

BLOCK OF ROEMER COURT FROM PD/CM (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT/COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING) TO PD/C-2 (PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT/GENERAL COMMERCIAL) FOR HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS WHEREAS, the applicant, Lotus Management, Inc. initiated a General Plan Land Use amendment and zone change (GPZ2022-0001) to amend the General Plan Land Use Policy Map and Zoning Map on a 2.13-acre property at the 2000 Block of Roemer Court; and a Planned Development Permit (PD2022-0001), is on file to construct a 4- story, 93 room hotel, herein referred to as the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council authorize the filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holiday Inn Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq., as amended; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission made its recommendation in writing that the City Council amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa Maria for the Project site from PD/CM (Planned Development/Commercial Manufacturing) to PD/C-2 (Planned Development/General Commercial) (Resolution No. 2826); and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on this amendment to the Official Zoning Map by the City Council on March 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council made no substantial modification of the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map which had not been previously considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered and relied on the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, in making its decision on the amendment to the Official Zoning Map.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, State of California, as follows:

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

SECTION 2. An amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa Maria is hereby approved for 2.13-acres FROM PD/CM (Planned Development/Commercial 2 Manufacturing) zone district TO PD/C-2 (Planned Development/General Commercial) for the Holiday Inn project as shown on Attachment D of the Council Agenda Report dated March 5, 2024, incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 3. The Director of Community Development, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to make corresponding changes on the Official Zoning Map with this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan of the City, that the proposed modifications are required for the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare, and that in the case of the zone change, the area is afforded the services and facilities appropriate for the zone proposed.

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

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Within fifteen days following its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with State Law; or when deemed necessary due to the length or complexity of the Ordinance, cause a summary of the Ordinance to be prepared and published at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. If a summary is published at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted, then within 15 days after adoption of the Ordinance the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance and shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance along with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5 th day of March 2023.

ATTEST:

Chief City Clerk
Mayor
3 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
Interim City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MARIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT PD2022-0001 FOR HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, LOCATED
AT THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROEMER COURT
WHEREAS, the applicant, Lotus Management, Inc. has applied for a Planned Development Permit (PD2022-0001) to construct a 4-story, 93 room hotel on a 2.13-acre site, herein referred to as the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Maria held a public meeting on January 17, 2024, to review the Planned Development Permit; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission made its recommendation by motion that the City Council approve the proposed Planned Development permit as conditioned; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on the Planned Development Permit by the Santa Maria City Council on March 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Santa Maria City Council made no modification of the proposed Planned Development Permit which had been previously considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and relied on the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, in making its decision on the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Maria has reviewed the Holiday Inn Express Planned Development Permit project in accordance with the application submitted and hereby makes the required findings in accordance with Section 12-35.203 of the Municipal Code, including the following:

A. That the project meets the vision, intent, and requirements of the General Plan.

The purpose of the Community Commercial General Plan Land Use designation as described on page LU-18 of the City’s General Plan Land Use section is “to include the majority of retail uses outside the central core, particularly along the lineal development corridors which have emerged. The majority of these uses would be geared to the area-wide market.” The project meets the vision, intent, and requirements of the General Plan because it would be located within a designation meant to provide more flexibility in regard to the types of commercial uses that could be developed at the site including a proposed hotel.

B. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate the use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly adapt such use with the land and uses in the vicinity because the project is designed to comply with the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code standards for the PD/C-2 zone, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, setbacks, building height and vehicular access. The site is adequately sized to accommodate the proposed commercial use, and the construction of the hotel would adapt with the land and uses in the vicinity which includes a similar land use pattern of hotel development as well as some less intensive industrial development.

C. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quality and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use because the proposed construction of the project would not lead to inadequate street and highway conditions. A traffic and circulation study was prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) in 2021 for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change associated with this project. The City of Santa Maria General Plan Circulation Element states that a Level of Service (LOS) D or better is acceptable for roadway and intersection operations. The traffic study determined that the existing area intersections operate within acceptable LOS ranges. The same determination was also made for the existing plus project conditions and cumulative project conditions with no changes to the LOS at the area intersections requiring mitigation to meet the City’s acceptable LOS requirements.

The City received a second traffic analysis (Orosz Engineering Group, June 2023) for a non-related project located on Preisker Lane approximately ¼ mile to the east of the project site, which also analyzed the Broadway/Roemer intersection. Based on the results of that analysis, the City requested and received a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis (Orosz Engineering Group, October 2023) to provide further analysis for the Broadway/Roemer intersection. The City Public Works Department has determined based on all of the traffic analysis that a signal is not warranted at the Broadway/Roemer intersection. However, the Holiday Inn Express project is required to pay traffic mitigation fees through the conditions of this permit.

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. 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”.

Furthermore, the City completed equivalent local-serving retail site estimates. The hotel proposal would be the approximate equivalent of a 20,590 square-foot shopping center which falls within the local-retail screening criteria of less than 50,000 square-feet per City Environmental Procedures.

D. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect upon abutting property as the construction of the hotel development and the establishment of the commercial use would be self-sustained by providing adequate on-site parking in an area of the City that has established commercial development of a similar scale. No land use conflicts would be established as identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (Goal L.U-.7) because the project site is either the same Land Use designation as proposed by the project or is designated for adjacent to development and zoning that is of less intensive industrial type and not heavy industrial.

E. That the establishment, maintenance and/or conducting of the use for which the planned development review is sought will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; nor shall the use be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development because the construction of the commercial project and the establishment of such use would adapt with the land and uses in the vicinity. The project would provide adequate space for setbacks, parking, and landscaping to ensure no nuisances would be created by the establishment of the project. The conditions of approval and development standards required for this project alleviate any potentially adverse impacts that could result from the proposed use. Therefore, the project would be compatible with the adjoining land uses and would not be more obnoxious or detrimental to the health of the public than any of the uses established at the project area, or any of the uses listed in the PD/C-2 section of the Municipal Code.

F. That the conditions stated in the decision are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.

G. The proposed modification(s) are otherwise consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and applicable Specific Plans. No modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

H. The project includes superior design elements that mitigate or compensate for any potential impact of the proposed modification(s) on the surrounding area. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards in the Municipal Code and no modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

I. The proposed modification(s) are essential to the design of the project. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards in the Municipal Code and no modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

J. The proposed modification(s) have been minimized to the maximum extent possible consistent with Subsections (a) through (c) of Section 12-35.203 of the Municipal Code. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards in the Municipal Code and no modifications to development standards per Section 12-35.202 of the Municipal Code are proposed.

K. That the environmental impacts of the project are adequately reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Holiday Inn Express General Plan Land Use and Zone Amendment (GPZ2022-0001) and there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment. There is no substantial evidence in the whole record before the Planning Commission supporting a fair argument that the project as described in the MND will produce the conditions as provided in Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines under which a Negative Declaration must be recirculated for public review. No further environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council approves the Planned Development Permit (Exhibit G of the City Council staff report dated March 5, 2024, incorporated herein by reference) for Holiday Inn Express, located at the 2000 Block of Roemer Court.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 5
th day of March 2024.

ATTEST:

Chief City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
Interim City Manager
FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2024

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager Alex Posada
BY: Interim Assistant City Manager / Director of Community Development Chuen Wu
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR TIME EXTENSIONS AND PERMIT REVOCATIONS, TITLE 12 OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE.

Description:

The City Council will consider approving Zoning Text Amendments (Z2024-0001) to amend Chapter 12-35, Article 5, Section 12-35.501, "Reconsideration of Discretionary Permits,” and add a new Section 12-35.504, “Permit Revocation,” to Title 12 – Zoning, of the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.

Environmental Notice: The item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance for the first reading and continue to a future meeting for the second reading and adoption, amendments to Chapter 12-35, Article 5, Section 12-

35.501, “Reconsideration of Discretionary Permits,” and addition of a new Section 12-

35.504, “Permit Revocation,” to Title 12 – Zoning of the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

The proposed text Amendments include revisions to Title 12, Chapter 12-35 addressing the Reconsideration of Discretionary permits to clarify the time limits for approved permits, the process for obtaining a time extension for approved permits, and permit revocation.

Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendments at the November 1, 2023, public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the item to a future hearing date and requested that the item be reviewed at a study session prior to the next hearing.

A study session was held on December 7, 2023, where staff clarified the Commissioner’s questions. On January 17, 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed the item at a noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the amendments to the City Council. 2 DISCUSSION:

The proposed amendments to Chapter 12-35, Section 12-35.501 (Reconsideration of Discretionary Permits) will provide a more efficient and streamlined process to establish expiration dates and time extensions for Planned Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits. The amended Section, “Permit Expiration and Time Extensions”, clarifies that expiration dates of Planned Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits would be three years from the permit’s effective date. Additional language has been added to clarify when these permits would be deemed established, and the process for filing for a time extension. Regarding time extensions, the original decision-maker on the project may grant an extension of up to two years if it finds that there has been adequate due diligence to implement and complete the permit, or that there are significant economic factors that justify additional time. There would be no limit to the number of time extensions that may be approved provided that the required findings are made, compared to the existing language that only allows for two extensions of two years each, for a maximum of seven years on the life of a planning permit.

A new section, 12-35.504 “Permit Revocation,” is proposed to be added to specify the grounds for revocation of a Planned Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit.

Permits may be revoked if such approval was based on the following: 1) inaccurate or misleading information; 2) one or more of the conditions upon which such approval was granted or extended have been violated; 3) the permit included a specific timeline that has not been complied with or phasing that has not occurred within the time provided, or 4) the permit involved a conditional use that has been abandoned. A public hearing is required by the decision-maker of the permit before any action on revocation. If the revocation of any permit is ordered, the decision-making body may provide a reasonable period of time to amortize any lawful existing uses on the site. The action regarding revocation may be appealed as set forth in Section 12-35.401 of Title 12.

Alternative(s)
As an alternative to approving the recommended zoning text amendments, the City Council could reject the Planning Commission’s recommendations and not move forward with the recommended amendments. In that case, the existing ordinance language would remain in effect.

Environmental Review
The Amendments to Chapter 12-35, Article 5, Section 12-35.501 and the addition of Section 12-35.504 have been reviewed for compliance with CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and the City’s environmental procedures, and has been found not to be a project subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment (CEQA Guideline Section 15378(b)(5)).

Fiscal Considerations
The property owner/applicant will be responsible for paying the application fee for a time extension, which is currently $2,090 for administrative time extensions, and $6,900 for time extensions that are subject to Planning Commission and City Council review. The 3 remaining text amendments regarding permit revocation establish processes within the Code and would not result in additional fees.

Impact to the Community
The proposed amendments will provide an efficient and streamlined process to establish expiration dates and time extensions for Planned Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits. The amendments will also provide updated regulations and processes for when a permit may be revoked.

ATTACHMENTS
A: Planning Commission Resolution
ORDINANCE NO. 20__ -

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12-35, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 12-35.501 OF THE SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE, REPLACING

RECONSIDERATION OF DISCRETIONARY PERMITS WITH PERMIT EXPIRATION AND TIME EXTENSIONS AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 12-35.504 REGARDING

PERMIT REVOCATION
WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance classifies and regulates the uses of land, buildings and structures within the City in accordance with the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance are necessary to ensure orderly and beneficial development of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to replace Section 12-35.501 entitled “Reconsideration of Discretionary Permits” with a more efficient and streamlined process establishing permit expirations and time extensions; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to add Section 12-35.504, setting forth a revised procedure for the revocation of discretionary permits; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendments are consistent with the City of Santa Maria General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and voted to continue the item to a future public hearing with direction to staff to conduct a study session with the Planning Commission prior to the next hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the subject Amendments; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2024, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, State of California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 12-35.501, of Article 5, of Chapter 12-35 of Title 12 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code entitled “Reconsideration of Discretionary Permits,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
2 “Section 12-35.501. Permit Expiration and Time Extensions. (a) Period of Validity. The period of validity for a Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Development Permit shall begin on the permit’s effective date as set forth in Section 12-

35.109. The period of validity shall run pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. The expiration date of a discretionary permit issued in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map shall correspond with the expiration of that map, including any extensions. (b) Establishment. A conditional use permit or planned development permit shall be deemed established if the following actions occur within three years of the effective date of the approval or within such other time period designated by the approval:
(1) In the case of a conditional use permit or planned development permit where ministerial permits are required, such permits have been issued. (2) In the case of a conditional use permit or planned development permit where no ministerial permits are required, the use authorized by the permit has been established. In circumstances where a business license is required, such business license has been issued.
(c) Expiration. A conditional use permit or planned development permit shall expire and be of no further force or effect if:
(1) The permit is not established within three years of the permit’s effective date or such other time period designated by the permit approval, by state law or by this code; or
(2) After establishment, the use or activity for which the permit was approved is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six months.
(d) Time Extensions.
(1) Upon application before expiration of the period of validity, the original decisionmaking body may grant an extension to the period of validity for up to two years if it finds that there has been adequate due diligence to implement and complete the permit, or that there are significant economic factors that justify additional time. The filing of an application for extension shall stay expiration of the permit until action is taken on the time extension by the decision-making body.
(2) Projects not requiring a time extension may be constructed in accordance with the requirements and standards in effect at the time of permit approval provided the construction complies with all project conditions of approval and all laws in effect at the time of the permit approval. However, any project or permit requiring a time extension shall conform to the requirements and standards in effect at the time the extension is granted.”
3 SECTION 2. A new Section 12-35.504 is hereby added to Article 5, of Chapter 12-35 of Title 12 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code entitled “Permit Revocation,” to read as follows:
“Section 12-35.504. Permit Revocation.
(a) Grounds for Revocation. Any conditional use permit or planned development permit may be revoked by the decision-making body that originally took action on the permit pursuant to the provisions of this section on any of the following grounds:
(1) Such approval was based on inaccurate or misleading information. (2) One or more of the conditions upon which such approval was granted or extended have been violated.
(3) The permit included a specific timeline that has not been complied with, or provided for phasing that has not occurred within the time provided for such phasing.
(4) The permit involves a conditional use that has been abandoned. (b) Procedure. Prior to any action on revocation, the decision-making body shall hold a public hearing noticed and held in accordance with Section 12-35.104, except that the permittee shall be given not less than thirty days’ notice. The notice shall state the causes for which the revocation is to be considered.
(c) Action of Decision-Making Body. Following the hearing, the decision-making body may revoke the permit or revoke the permit subject to reinstatement upon compliance with the conditions of the original permit and any other additional conditions of approval necessary to preserve the public health, safety or welfare. (d) Amortization. If a revocation of any permit is ordered, the decision-making body may at the same time provide for a reasonable period of time to amortize any lawful existing uses on the site. Extensions of this time period may be granted for good cause shown on a later application to the decision-making body by any affected person. (e) Appeal. Any action by the decision making body pursuant to this section may be appealed as set forth in Section 12-35.401.”
SECTION 3. This Ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA guidelines, and the City’s environmental procedures, and has been found not to be a project subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment (CEQA Guideline Section 15378(b)(5)).

SECTION 4. If any part or provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter, including the application of that part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
4 SECTION 5. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Within fifteen days following its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with State Law; or when deemed necessary due to the length or complexity of the Ordinance, cause a summary of the Ordinance to be prepared and published at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. If a summary is published at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted, then within 15 days after adoption of the Ordinance the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance and shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance along with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of March 2024, and PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of ______ 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
5 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
Interim City Manager

ATTACHMENT A

FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2024

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager Alex Posada
BY: Interim Assistant City Manager / Director of Community Development Chuen Wu
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, TITLE 12 OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE.

Description:

The City Council will consider the adoption of Zoning Text Amendments (Z2023-0001) to amend Chapter 12-56, Accessory Dwelling Units, of Title 12 – Zoning, of the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.

Environmental Notice: The proposed Zoning Text Amendments are statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance for the first reading and continue to a future meeting for the second reading and adoption, amendments to Chapter 12-56, Accessory Dwelling Units of Title 12 – Zoning, of the City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

On October 9, 2019, Governor Newsom signed three bills (AB 68, AB 881, and SB 13, codified in Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22) into law to further streamline the permitting process for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) located in residential zones. These bills became effective on January 1, 2020. To comply with the updated State law requirements, staff completed Zoning Text Amendments to Chapter 12-56 of Title 12 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and the amendments went into effect on June 17, 2021. Chapter 12-56 was most recently updated on July 7, 2022, to clarify that except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, ADUs shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit.

On September 28, 2022, Assembly Bill (AB) 2221 and Senate Bill (SB) 897 amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 for ADUs and JADUs. These bills became effective on January 1, 2023, at which time certain provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 12-56, for permitting ADUs and JADUs became inconsistent with State law. The new legislation permits certain types of ADUs to have increased height allowances, allows greater flexibility in the number of ADUs and their placement on the 2 property, and streamlines the process of obtaining an ADU permit with a 60-day turnaround timeline. The proposed Amendments include revisions to address the current legislation and serve to reorganize and refine Chapter 12-56 for permitting ADUs and JADUs.

Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendments at the November 1, 2023, public hearing. At this hearing, the Commissioners had questions regarding height limits for detached ADUs, front yard setbacks, and proposed development standards regarding landscaping and income reporting. The Planning Commission continued the item to a future hearing date and requested that the item be reviewed at a study session before the next hearing. A study session was held on December 7, 2023, where staff clarified the Commissioner’s questions regarding height limitations and front yard setback requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the item at the January 17, 2024, public hearing, and recommended approval of the subject text amendments to the City Council.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed amendments to Chapter 12-56 follow State legislation for the development of ADUs and JADUs on residentially zoned lots in the City of Santa Maria. The following provides a detailed discussion of the proposed amendments.

ADU Building Height
Detached ADUs located on a lot with an existing single-family dwelling currently may not exceed the height that is permitted in the applicable zone district (for example, 25 feet in the R-1 zone). Under the current State legislation, jurisdictions may adopt a lower height limit, provided that it is no lower than 16 feet. Therefore, staff is recommending that the proposed ordinance be amended to limit the maximum building height for detached ADUs in single-family residential zones to be 18 feet. Attached ADUs may continue to be up to 25 feet in height and may not exceed two stories.

ADU Building Size
Detached ADUs on single-family lots currently may not exceed 1,200-square-feet in size.

The proposed amendments would lower the allowable size of detached ADUs to 850- square-feet for a studio or one bedroom, and 1,000-square-feet for an ADU with two or more bedrooms. Attached ADUs would be limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the primary residence.

Front Yard Setbacks
The current State legislation permits new construction attached and detached ADUs to encroach into the front yard setback of the underlying zone district if complying with the setback prevents the construction of an ADU that is at least 800-square-feet in size. The proposed ordinance includes a provision that ADUs proposed to be located within the front yard setback area be limited to 800-square-feet in size. ADUs located within the front yard setback area must comply with all building codes and site distance requirements for safety.
3 ADUs and JADUs permitted under Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) This subdivision of State law requires the ministerial approval of ADUs within residential zones. These types of ADUs are not subject to other specified areas of State ADU law such as zoning and development standards (ex. lot coverage, setbacks, heights, and unit sizes). ADUs under this section must meet the building code and health and safety requirements. The City’s ordinance has been updated to be consistent with this subdivision and includes the following four categories:

1. One ADU and one JADU are permitted per lot within the existing space of a singlefamily dwelling or accessory structure.

2. One detached new construction ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. May be combined on the same lot with a JADU if the ADU does not exceed 800 square feet and 16 feet in height.

3. Multiple ADUs within the portions of multifamily structures that are not used as livable space. Local agencies must allow at least one of these types of ADUs and up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily structures.

4. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot that has existing multifamily dwellings that are subject to height limits of 16 feet and four-foot rear and side yard setbacks.

Time Limits for Permit Approval
The current State legislation requires that jurisdictions approve or deny ADUs and JADUs within 60 days of a complete application. If the complete application has not been approved or denied within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. If an application for an ADU or JADU is denied, the City shall provide within 60 days a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the applicant can be remedied. If an ADU or JADU is submitted along with a new single-family or multi-family dwelling, the City may delay approving the ADU or JADU until the single-family or multi-family dwelling is approved.

Objective Design Standards
The ordinance amendments include the addition of new objective design standards applicable to ADUs that do not comply with Subdivision (e)(1) above. The types of ADUs subject to these standards would typically exceed 800-square-feet and would be newconstruction ADUs. The proposed objective design standards address architectural style and roof pitch, private open space, lot coverage, privacy to neighboring properties, lighting, and access. These standards will assist in ensuring that proposed ADUs are compatible with the existing primary dwelling and character of the neighborhood.

Alternative(s)
As an alternative to approving the recommended zoning text amendments, the City Council could reject the Planning Commission’s recommendations and not move forward with the recommended amendments. In that case, the provisions of the State legislation would continue to apply to the City’s review and permitting of ADUs and JADUs. Staff recommends that if the City Council does not approve the proposed zoning text amendments, staff be directed to prepare an ordinance repealing Municipal Code Title 12 4 Chapter 12-56, as this Chapter would be superseded by the State law and no longer applicable to permitting ADUs and JADUs in the City of Santa Maria.

Environmental Review
Under California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California’s ADU law, and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by Section 65852.22.

Therefore, the Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the Ordinance implements the State’s ADU law.

Fiscal Considerations
The proposed amendments will permit ADUs on residentially zoned lots within the city.

The construction of new attached and detached ADUs will generate some additional property taxes for the City.

Impact to the Community
The amended regulations will result in properly regulated ADUs and JADUs consistent with State law requirements and will allow the City of Santa Maria to continue to provide a wider range of housing options for families and individuals of various income levels. The increased density resulting from the construction of new ADUs and JADUs will result in an increase in the use of existing City utility infrastructure. Additional State exemptions to the parking requirements could result in impacts to available street parking in some neighborhoods. However, the amended Ordinance meets the minimum State law requirements for the number of ADUs and JADUs permitted on residentially zoned lots.

When properly permitted, these units will not pose a threat of a public nuisance or have an adverse impact on public safety, health, or welfare.

ATTACHMENTS
A: Planning Commission Resolution

ORDINANCE NO. 2024 -

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MARIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12-56 OF THE

SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, State law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for the construction of ADUs and JADUs in order to comply with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and continued the item to a future hearing date with direction to staff to conduct a study session on the item prior to the next hearing; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the item; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the ADU ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2024, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, State of California, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 12-56 of Title 12 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and a new Chapter 12-56 is adopted to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 12-56 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Section 12-56.01. Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to allow and regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The intent is to encourage the orderly development of ADUs and JADUs that contribute needed housing. 2 Section 12-56.02. Effect of Conforming.

An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zone district for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable dwelling unit density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any City ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

4. Required to correct a Nonconforming Zoning Condition, as defined below. This does not prevent the City from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

Section 12-56.03. Definitions.

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). An attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same lot as the single-family or multi-family dwelling is or will be situated. An Accessory Dwelling Unit also includes the following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code; and
b. A manufactured home, as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code.

2. Accessory Structure. A structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.

3. Efficiency Kitchen. A kitchen that includes a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.

4. Existing Structure. For the purposes of defining an allowable space that can be converted to an accessory dwelling unit, within the proposed space of an existing structure means within the four walls and roofline of any existing structure that can be made safely habitable under local building codes at the determination of the building official regardless of any non-compliance with zoning standards.

5. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU). A residential unit that:
a. Is no more than 500-square-feet in size;
b. Is contained entirely within a single-family residence or attached garage; 3 c. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family dwelling. If the unit does not include its own separate bathroom, then it contains an interior entrance to the main living area of the existing or proposed single-family dwelling in addition to an exterior entrance that is separate from the main entrance to the primary dwelling; and
d. Includes an efficiency kitchen as defined below.

6. Living Area. The interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

7. Multi-Family Dwelling. Any structure designed for human habitation that has been divided into two or more legally created independent living quarters.

8. Nonconforming Zoning Condition. A physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.

9. Passageway. A pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.

10.Public Transit. A location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

Section 12-56.04. Approval Requirements.

1. Approval of ADUs and JADUs in conformance with Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1). The Community Development Director shall ministerially approve an application for an ADU or JADU that complies with each of the general requirements in Section 12-56.05(A) with a building permit for any of the following:
a. Converted on a single-family dwelling lot.
i. One ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling on it, where the ADU:

1. Is either:
a. Within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; or
b. Within the space of an existing single-family dwelling; or
c. Within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to 150 additional square feet if the expansion
is limited to accommodating ingress and egress; and
4 2. Has exterior access that is independent of that for the proposed or existing single-family dwelling; and

3. Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
ii. One JADU within the space of an existing or proposed single-family dwelling or attached garage in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.22.

1. When a garage is converted to a JADU, onsite replacement parking shall be provided in conformance with Chapter 12-32.

Covered parking is not required.
b. Limited detached on a single-family dwelling lot. One detached, new construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (in addition to any JADU that might otherwise be established on the lot under Section 12-56.04.1.a above), if the detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
i. The side and rear setbacks are at least four feet.
ii. The floor area is a maximum of 800-square-feet.
iii. The height does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection 12-56.05(A)(2), below.
c. Converted on multi-family dwelling lot.
i. Multiple ADUs within portions of existing multi-family dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings.
ii. At least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing multi-family dwelling, and up to 25 percent of the existing multi-family dwelling units may each have a converted ADU under this subsection. d. Limited detached on multi-family dwelling lot. No more than two detached ADUs on a lot that has an existing or proposed multi-family dwelling if each detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
i. The side and rear yard setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multi-family dwelling has a rear or side yard setback of less than four feet, the City will not require any modification to the existing multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU. ii. The height does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection 12-56.05.(A)(2), below.
5 2. Approval of ADUs not in conformance with Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1). Except as allowed under subsection 12-56.04.1 above, one attached or one detached ADU shall be allowed for each lot with a single-family dwelling or in connection with a proposed single-family dwelling for a vacant lot.

No ADU may be constructed or legalized without obtaining a building permit in compliance with the development standards contained in Section 12-56.05, below.

Section 12-56.05. Development Standards for ADUs and JADUs.

A. The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under Sections 12-56.04.1 and 12-56.04.2, above:

1. Zoning. ADUs may be permitted on lots in a residential or mixed-use zoning district with an existing legal single-family or multi-family dwelling, or in connection with a proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling for a vacant lot. JADUs are only permitted on lots that are zoned for single-family residential (R-1 & RSL-1) with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.

2. Height.
a. A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling unit may not exceed 18-feet in height. The ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. A detached ADU created on a single-family lot that also contains a permitted JADU may not exceed 16-feet in height. b. A detached ADU created on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling unit may not exceed 16-feet in height. The height limit may be increased to 18-feet in height if the existing or proposed multi-family dwelling unit has more than one story above grade or is located within onehalf mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. The ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. c. An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed 25-feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zone district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ADUs subject to this subsection may not exceed two stories. d. For purposes of this section, height is the vertical distance between the existing legal grade and the uppermost point of the roof of the structure directly above that legal grade.

3. Minimum Size. The minimum floor area of an ADU is 150-square-feet for a standard unit. An “efficiency unit” ADU, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, may be a minimum of 150-square-feet. 6 4. Owner Occupancy. For all JADUs, either the primary dwelling unit or the newly created JADU shall be owner-occupied as a primary dwelling unit and permanent residence by the property owner(s). Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another government agency, land trust, or housing organization. a. If the Zoning Administrator determines that neither of the units is occupied by the property owner, the approval of the JADU shall terminate immediately and the unit shall not be rented, leased, or occupied as a separate dwelling.
b. For the purposes of this Chapter, the property owner is the majority owner of the property as shown in the most recent Santa Barbara County assessor’s roll. If there is more than one property owner on record, the owner with the majority interest in the property shall be deemed the property owner. Any property owner of record holding an equal share interest in the property may be deemed the majority property owner.
c. Covenant Agreement. A covenant agreement is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The covenant agreement shall state that:
i. The JADU shall not be sold separately.
ii. The JADU is restricted to the approved size;
iii. The property owner is required to reside in the primary dwelling unit or the JADU;
iv. The use of the JADU shall be in effect only so long as the property is in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter; v. The above declarations are binding upon any successor in ownership of the property, lack of compliance shall be cause for code enforcement;
vi. The covenant agreement shall terminate upon removal of the JADU;
vii. The covenant agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Santa Barbara at the expense of the property owner.

5. No separate conveyance. Except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, no ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family dwelling lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multi-family dwelling lot). All restrictive covenants, and other contractual agreements with the City apply to the property.

6. Rental of Unit. Rental of the ADU or JADU is allowed for not less than 30-days.

7. Building Codes. Local building code requirements apply to ADUs and JADUs, as appropriate.
7 8. Passageway. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.

9. Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU or JADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence. The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the primary dwelling.

10.Utility Meters. ADUs and JADUs shall not be considered new residential uses for the purpose of calculating utility connection fees or capacity charges, including water and sewer service. ADUs and JADUs contained within an existing residence or an existing accessory structure are not required to install new or separate utility connections or pay a related connection fee or capacity charge. For new attached and detached ADUs, the connection fee and/or capacity charge must be proportionate to the burden of the unit on the water or sewer system based on either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined by the Plumbing Code.

11.Development Impact Fees.
a. No development impact fees are required for an ADU that is less than 750- square-feet in floor area. For purposes of this subsection, “impact fee” means a “fee” under the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000(b)) and a fee under the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.
b. Any development impact fee that is required for an ADU that is 750-squarefeet or larger in floor area must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. “Development impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service. The amount of the required fee shall be determined by adopted fee Resolutions and ordinances and applicable law in effect when paid.

B. The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under Section 12-56.04.2, above:

1. Maximum Size.
a. The maximum size of an ADU is as follows:
i. 850-square-feet for a studio or one-bedroom ADU.
ii. 1,000-square-feet for an ADU with two or more bedrooms. b. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing or proposed primary dwelling is further limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing or proposed primary dwelling.
c. Application of other development standards in this Section, such as lot coverage (as applicable), might further limit the size of the ADU, but no 8 application of the percent-based size limit above or of a front setback, lot coverage limit, or open space requirement (as applicable) may require the ADU to be less than 800 square feet.

2. Lot Coverage. No ADU may exceed 10 percent of the total lot area of the subject lot, subject to subsection B.1.c above.

3. Setbacks. ADUs subject to this subsection must observe the following setback requirements:
a. Side setback: Four feet
b. Rear setback: Four feet
c. Front Setback: The ADU shall be constructed in accordance with the setback of the underlying zone district, subject to Section B.1.c above. d. No setback is required for an ADU subject to this subsection if the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

4. Building Separation. The minimum separation between the primary dwelling unit and a detached ADU must be at least five feet for new construction.

5. Parking.
a. Parking for ADUs shall be provided at a rate of one parking space per ADU or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces shall be provided in conformance with Section 12-32.12, except that tandem parking is allowed for ADUs as stated in Government Code section 65852.2 unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon the specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
b. Parking requirements for an ADU are in addition to the required parking for the primary dwelling unit.
c. Parking is not required in any of the following instances:
i. The ADU is located within ½ mile walking distance of public transit.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant district;
iii. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure;
iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU;
v. When a car share vehicle is located within one block of the ADU. 9 6. Objective Design Standards.
a. The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, windows, and doors must match the appearance of those of the primary dwelling. Samples of existing and proposed colors, materials, roofing, and features must be provided as part of a complete ADU application.
b. The roof pitch must match that of the dominant roof pitch of the primary dwelling. The dominant roof pitch is the pitch shared by the largest portion of the roof. Roof pitch and roof materials for a newly constructed ADU may be different from that of the primary dwelling on the lot only if accommodating installation of solar energy systems at the same time as construction of the ADU.
c. Windows and doors of the ADU may not have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Fencing, landscaping, or privacy glass may be used to provide screening and prevent a direct line of sight. Samples of proposed vegetative screening and planting locations must be provided as part of a complete ADU application. Exceptions to this design standard apply only to conversion of legally permitted structures that do not include installation of new exterior windows facing an adjacent property line or when only clerestory windows are used and do not provide views into neighboring lots.
d. Two-story detached ADUs shall limit the major access to stairs, decks, entry doors, and windows to the interior of the lot or an alley and comply with all development standards. Only one (1) curb cut shall be permitted per parcel and no additional driveways or access points shall be created to accommodate the ADU or main dwelling unit.
e. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward, fully shielded, and full cutoff or as otherwise required by the building or fire code.
f. Private Open Space. The main dwelling unit and the additional dwelling unit shall each be provided with a minimum of fifteen (15) feet by fifteen (15) feet of usable private open yard area, subject to subsection B.1.c above.

7. Historical Protections. An ADU that is on real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources may not alter the exterior of any structure that is designated as a historic resource or, if the entire lot is designated as a historic resource, it may not alter the exterior of any structure on the lot.

Section 12-56.06. Permit process and timing.

1. ADUs and JADUs shall be permitted ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. The Community Development Director shall issue a building permit to establish an ADU and/or JADU in compliance with this Chapter if all applicable requirements in this Chapter are met, as appropriate.
10 2. The City must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60-days from the date that the City receives a completed application. If the City has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application is deemed approved unless either:
a. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay; or
b. If the permit application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the City may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or JADU until the City acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. Final building permit inspection for the single-family dwelling shall be approved prior to final building permit inspection approval for the ADU or JADU.

3. If the City denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the City must provide the applicant with comments that include a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the 60-day time period established by subsection (2) above.

Section 12-56.07. Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

1. The City will not deny an ADU or JADU application due to a nonconforming zoning condition, building code violation, or unpermitted structure on the lot that does not present a threat to the public health and safety and that is not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.

2. As required by State law, the City may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
a. The ADU violates applicable building standards, or
b. The ADU does not comply with the State ADU law (Government Code Section 65852.2, 65852.22) or this section.
c. Exceptions:
i. Notwithstanding subsection 2 above, the City may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if the City makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or of occupants of the structure.
11 ii. Subsection 2 above does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.”
SECTION 2. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by Section 65852.22. Therefore, the Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the Ordinance implements the State’s ADU law.

SECTION 3. If any part or provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter, including the application of that part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.

SECTION 4. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Within fifteen days following its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with State Law; or when deemed necessary due to the length or complexity of the Ordinance, cause a summary of the Ordinance to be prepared and published at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. If a summary is published at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted, then within 15 days after adoption of the Ordinance the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance and shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance along with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance.
12 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of March 2024, and PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of ______ 20__, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST:

Assistant City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
Department Director
_______________________________
Interim City Manager