Policy Framework
Goal HEJ-1: Healthy and pollution-free neighborhoods. All residents have access to clean air, water, and soil.
8 Policy HEJ-1.1: Protect against potential exposure to industrial pollution. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses (e.g., schools, senior centers, and daycare centers) near existing industrial, commercial, and agricultural uses which have the potential result in exposure to harmful air pollution and toxic chemicals, especially in DACs that have experienced disproportionate pollution burdens, by carefully analyzing proposed development. 9
Action HEJ-1.1.1: When separation from pollution sources is not feasible, encourage and support indoor air quality improvements for sensitive land uses—particularly in DACs—through measures such as:
• Locating HVAC air intakes away from pollution sources • Installing HEPA filters and ensuring regular maintenance • Options to replace gas appliances with electric alternatives • Limiting operable windows near pollution sources in non-residential buildings 8 Please see the Safety, Noise, Circulation, and Public Facilities Frameworks for additional policies and actions focused on oil and gas wells, water quality, noise, vehicle dependence, hazardous waste generators, and food waste diversion. 9 Please see the Recreation and Parks, Circulation, Noise, and Land Use Elements for policies and actions related to land use conflicts.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 14
• Use green (e.g., drought-tolerant trees) and gray (e.g., sound walls) infrastructure buffers to reduce freeway-related air and noise pollution near homes and businesses • Develop health-protective standards that also support local business continuity • Collaborate with residents to identify and address odor sources that impact health and well-being Policy HEJ-1.2: Enforce truck routes. Ensure local adherence to the City’s most recent truck routes map and regulations that aim to reduce significant traffic and pollution impacts on homes, schools, childcare centers, senior centers, and other sensitive land uses. 10 Policy HEJ-1.3: Expand electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. Encourage the installation of additional EV charging infrastructure.
Action HEJ-1.3.1: Seek funding opportunities such as the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) to offset costs for businesses and property owners in DACs who install EV chargers, while also educating residents and businesses on EV battery safety.
Policy HEJ-1.4: Promote healthy farming techniques. Support sustainable agricultural practices in and around the City of Santa Maria.
Action HEJ-1.4.1: Support the Santa Barbara County Agriculture/Weights & Measures Department’s efforts to identify communities that should be prioritized for education and interventions to reduce farms’ pesticide use, limit pesticide drift onto communities, protect farm workers against pesticide exposure, ensure compliance with pesticide spraying time blocks, and support the use of Integrated Pest Management practices.
Action HEJ-1.4.2: Work collaboratively with Santa Barbara County’s Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to enforce the County’s agricultural buffer zones and the installation of vegetative barriers to minimize land use conflicts; determine buffers for proposed projects; limit pesticide drift; and protect farmers, workers, and residents from harms related to agricultural uses. 11
Policy HEJ-1.5: Facilitate oil and gas well remediation. Reduce potential pollution exposure from inactive oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure through proper abandonment and remediation. 12
Policy HEJ-1.6: Ensure proper site remediation. Work with developers and the responsible State and federal agencies to ensure the use of established best practices for investigating and fully remediating contaminated sites.
10 Please see the Circulation Element for policies and actions to mitigate the impacts of heavy vehicle traffic. 11 Please see the Land Use Framework for additional agricultural buffer policies. 12 Please see the Safety Element for additional policies and actions related to oil wells and other hazardous materials.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 15
Action HEJ-1.6.1: Direct developers to engage in standard brownfield cleanup practices, such as carrying out Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Analyses for assessing soil and groundwater contamination before any redevelopment can occur.
Action HEJ-1.6.2: Encourage developers to collaborate with State regulatory agencies (such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, and/or the California Geologic Energy Management Division) to leverage their support and expertise towards cleanup efforts.
Action HEJ-1.6.3: Advise developers to conduct additional site testing and provide greater safeguards if new sensitive uses are being proposed in DACs or areas previously zoned as industrial or commercial.
Policy HEJ-1.7: Promote safe waste disposal. Raise awareness about the proper disposal of hazardous waste.
Action HEJ-1.7.1: Continue to educate residents on the City’s programs and available resources for safely disposing of bulky items and hazardous household waste (such as chemicals, batteries, and expired medications), while continuing to enforce the City’s illegal dumping and hazardous waste disposal laws.
Policy HEJ-1.8: Preserve water quality. Continue to ensure that Santa Maria residents have access to clean, safe, affordable, and accessible water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation 13 by working with the County, State, and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to guard against potential contamination. 14
Goal HEJ-2: Safe and affordable housing. All residents have access to safe, sanitary, accessible, and affordable housing. 15
Policy HEJ-2.1: Implement the Housing Element. Prioritize the implementation of the goals, policies, and programs in Santa Maria’s Housing Element.
Action HEJ-2.1.1: Focus on City-led efforts to increase the diversity, quality, quantity, and affordability of housing in Santa Maria, including:
• Affordable housing production, protection, preservation, and options; especially for extremely low, very low, and low-income households
• Code enforcement, with a focus on neighborhoods with older and/or substandard housing stock (e.g., elimination of lead, asbestos, mold, and pests)
• Energy conservation and assistance programs, especially for low-income households • Safe and healthy farmworker housing
• Anti-displacement protections (e.g., first right of refusal policy) • Housing for older adults and seniors
13 For more information, please refer to the Human Right to Water Portal, State Water Resources Control Board. Retrieved from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/hr2w/ 14 Please see the Conservation and Open Space and Public Facilities and Services Elements for additional water quality policies and actions.
15 Please see the Housing and Land Use Elements for additional policies and actions focused on housing.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 16
• Housing for people with disabilities
• Housing and support systems for homeless or unhoused families and individuals • Fair housing program (e.g., legal services, tenant protections, rental assistance, anti-discrimination) • Environmental issues identification and action (e.g., efficient permit system for oil well closures and hazardous waste cleanups, addressing environmental risks to farm workers at home) • Environmental justice (e.g., avoiding the concentration of high-impact or hazardous uses and facilities in communities; and an equitable distribution of services, public facilities, and improvements).
Policy HEJ-2.2: Advance housing rehabilitation. Expand housing rehabilitation, hazard mitigation, and minor home repair programs, with a strong prioritization for low-income residents in disadvantaged communities and households with children. 16 Action HEJ-2.2.1: Collaborate with community-based organizations (CBOs) and housing advocates to support rehabilitation, repair, and hazard mitigation efforts for housing in low-income neighborhoods.
Action HEJ-2.2.2: Spread awareness of housing rehabilitation financial resources for low-income households, such as Community Development Block Grants, tax incentives, and other State and federal financial assistance programs.
Action HEJ-2.2.3: Identify long-term funding sources to continue the Minor Home Repair Programs.
Action HEJ-2.2.4: Seek funding to assist households living in units built before 1978 to identify and, if needed, remediate lead-based paint in their homes.
Policy HEJ-2.3: Bolster housing diversity. Promote a diversity of housing types in Santa Maria to support healthy, safe, and supportive living for people of all ages, abilities, incomes, stages of life, and circumstances, including options that allow residents to age in their homes.
Policy HEJ-2.4: Support multi-generational housing. Encourage the creation of new and rehabilitated multi-generational housing developments to support long-term livability.
Action HEJ-2.4.1: Continue to update the City’s Zoning Code as necessary to accommodate a wider variety of housing types, densities, and layouts, including multi-generational housing (e.g., ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, built-in suites), that allow multiple families to live together in healthy and appropriate areas. 16 Please see the Safety Element for additional policies and actions related to hazard mitigation and housing resilience.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 17
Goal HEJ-3: Mobility and safe streets. All residents have access to safe and affordable public transportation and active transportation infrastructure, focusing on equitable access and a Complete Streets approach to designing neighborhoods. 17 Policy HEJ-3.1: Ensure safe active transportation. Improve public safety and increase healthy walking and biking Complete Streets networks for Santa Maria’s diverse community members (including young children, families, people with disabilities, and older adults) by ensuring safe and clean sidewalks and streets, spacious and distinct bike lanes, and accessible and affordable public transit systems for moving people around town.
Action HEJ-3.1.1: Prioritize street improvements and infrastructure investments (i.e., lighting, sidewalks, and crosswalks) by working with Caltrans and other agencies for relevant projects, such as US-101 overcrossings, to increase citywide connectivity and facilitate residents’ safe walking, biking, local travel, and work commutes.
Action HEJ-3.1.2: Pursue funding for alternative transportation projects such as Complete Streets, accessible Universal Design systems, bicycle lanes and bike facilities, and accessible sidewalk improvements, with a particular focus on neighborhoods that are DACs.
Action HEJ-3.1.3: Incorporate climate-resilient infrastructure. Add drought-tolerant green and climaterelated infrastructure (i.e., trees, native plants, shade structures, signage, and benches) at transit stops to enhance comfort while waiting and reduce severe weather impacts, especially in under-resourced DACs.
Policy HEJ-3.2: Encourage safe routes to schools. Continue to partner with the school district to strengthen existing routes and establish new local safe routes to school initiatives and programs, with a priority to serve families and schools located in DACs.
Policy HEJ-3.3: Ensure equity in transit systems. Expand bus routes, increase headway frequencies, extend hours of operation, and provide additional programs to serve low-income and DAC residents to increase their access to jobs, schools, public services, and healthy food retailers. 18 Action HEJ-3.3.1: Conduct targeted outreach to families and students regarding reduced-fee transportation passes.
17 Please see the Circulation Element for additional policies and actions focused on mobility and safety. 18 Please see the Circulation Element for additional transit policies and actions.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 18
Goal HEJ-4: Opportunities for physical activity. People of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds have equitable access to parks, open space, and other community spaces that promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles. 19
Policy HEJ-4.1: Increase access to parks and open space. Preserve and improve park and open space access throughout the city, with a clear focus on expanding park investments and resources in DAC neighborhoods that have traditionally lacked high-quality park amenities and easy access to nature. 20
Policy HEJ-4.2: Expand tree canopy. Preserve existing trees, replace trees that are removed, and increase tree planting in new areas to improve Santa Maria’s air quality, create more attractive and walkable public spaces, and combat climate-related extreme heat and wind effects, especially for DACs. 21
Policy HEJ-4.3: Preserve greenbelts. Promote and maintain greenbelts in Santa Maria to promote greater public access to nature and increase opportunities for outdoor recreation. 22 Action HEJ-4.3.1: Consider community needs and feedback, particularly from DACs, when identifying greenbelt areas to be maintained, expanded, or created.
Policy HEJ-4.4: Increase infrastructure for physical activity. Promote active and healthy lifestyles for the Santa Maria community by increasing the number of bike storage units, public water stations, accessible walkways, pedestrian crosswalks, and family-friendly staircases that feature gentle slopes and landings in public spaces to encourage walking and biking around the city.
Goal HEJ-5: Accessible public facilities. All residents benefit from City services, infrastructure, and other public resources, with targeted investments and improvements for historically underresourced DAC neighborhoods. 23 Policy HEJ-5.1: Maintain public facilities. Prioritize equitable and timely maintenance of public facilities (e.g., sidewalks, parks and playgrounds, and City-maintained infrastructure) in DACs, recognizing the role of supportive services and a clean environment in promoting both positive mental and physical health.
19 Please see the Land Use Element for additional policies and actions focused on urban design and pedestrian-focused public spaces.
20 Please see the Recreation and Parks Element for policies and actions focused on park access. 21 Please see the Conservation and Open Space Element for additional urban forestry policies and actions. 22 Please see the Conservation and Open Space Element for additional greenbelt actions. 23 Please see the Public Facilities and Services and Recreation and Parks Elements for additional policies and actions related to public facilities and parks.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 19
Policy HEJ-5.2: Collaborate to improve facilities. Collaborate with public and private entities, including community-based nonprofit organizations, to continue maintaining and creating new parks, promoting cleanup efforts and City beautification programs, installing public art and murals, promoting tree planting, increasing recreational facilities, and preserving and maintaining open space areas, especially for residents living in DACs that traditionally lack access to such amenities.
Policy HEJ-5.3: Increase childcare access. Collaborate with local nonprofit organizations, childcare providers, and residents from impacted communities to assess the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare and to develop implementable strategies that address gaps, improve services, and ensure equitable access to childcare resources for all community members.
Policy HEJ-5.4: Improve community-serving programming. Enhance and maintain City-run programming for community members, particularly those who are low-income, youth, and seniors, to enhance their quality of life and strengthen physical activity opportunities.
Action HEJ-5.4.1: Support and expand free or low-cost waivers for low-income groups, especially youth and seniors, to participate in City-run physical activity programs and activities through the Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan.
Goal HEJ-6: Healthcare for all. All residents have access to excellent and affordable physical and mental health care resources.
Policy HEJ-6.1: Coordinate healthcare access. Partner with County Public Health and Behavioral Wellness Departments and local health care providers to improve equitable access to high-quality and culturally-relevant healthcare and mental health services, especially for communities that are more likely to face barriers such as residents that are uninsured, low-income or are on a limited or fixed income, live in a DAC, have disabilities, are farmworkers, have limited English proficiency, and/or are experiencing poor or chronic health issues.
Action HEJ-6.1.1: Work with healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and institutions to understand and address the current barriers to bringing in more healthcare services to Santa Maria, including potential land use issues.
Policy HEJ-6.2: Expand access to health information. Partner with the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, local healthcare institutions, and nonprofit organizations to provide accessible information on important health issues (e.g., chronic health conditions, nutrition, air pollution impacts, reproductive health, and mental health), especially for residents who face higher barriers to receiving information and education such as low-income residents in DACs, residents from Indigenous and Mixteco backgrounds, people with disabilities, farmworkers, students, and older adults.
Action HEJ-6.2.1: Collaborate with the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department and other local organizations to develop and implement a targeted health, mental health, and substance abuse education and outreach campaign to reach underserved communities.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 20
Policy HEJ-6.3: Integrate health in all policies. Promote a coordinated “Health in All Policies” approach by incorporating health equity and environmental sustainability in City programs, and by increasing cross-department collaborations and coordination to address health equity outcomes through joint initiatives and programming. 24
Policy HEJ-6.4: Promote emergency response alternatives. Coordinate with Mobile Crisis Teams to facilitate timely, non-law enforcement mental health emergency responses, especially in highstress DACs, while also training the City’s Police force on how to identify appropriate support systems for individuals experiencing mental health episodes or substance abuse problems.
Policy HEJ-6.5: Prioritize violence-prevention. Support and expand City resources (such as the Mayor’s Task Force) to provide violence prevention services and education to youth and adults of all ages, while also prioritizing youth leadership programs that work to improve public safety and proactively prevent and reduce crime.
Goal HEJ-7: Access to healthy food. All residents have access to affordable, fresh, and nutritious foods, including cultural foods.
Policy HEJ-7.1: Support community food distribution. Continue to assist Santa Maria’s community-based organizations, schools, and other institutions that are working to provide free or low-cost food to low-income families and unhoused residents who experience food insecurity in high-need areas of the city.
Action HEJ-7.1.1: Work with large food generators (e.g., grocery stores, food distributors, and restaurants) to ensure edible surplus food is delivered to local food recovery organizations.
Policy HEJ-7.2: Improve grocery store access. Support the expansion of supermarkets in Santa Maria, especially in the northeast and northwest corners of the city, in food desert areas, and in other DAC neighborhoods.
Policy HEJ-7.3: Expand access to fresh, healthy, affordable food. Collaborate to ensure that residents have ready access to fresh, nutritious food at affordable prices.
Action HEJ-7.3.1: Encourage corner store owners to increase the availability of fresh, healthy foods by providing refrigerated shelving units, adjusting store layout, and prioritizing nutritious choices.
Action HEJ-7.3.2: Establish a "Healthy Corner Store" initiative in partnership with the County Public Health Department to promote access to nutritious food and beverages in corner stores, especially in DACs.
24 “Health in All Policies (HiAP) is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas.” HiAP recognizes that health is influenced by a multitude of factors beyond healthcare and, in many cases, beyond the scope of traditional public health activities. For more information on the Health in All Policies approach, please visit: https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/health-in-all-policies Health and Environmental Justice Element | 21
Action HEJ-7.3.3: Pursue funding and partnerships to enhance equitable access to nutritious food across the community through tailored incentives and resources.
Action HEJ-7.3.4: Partner with local businesses, farms, and community organizations operating farmers’ markets to provide healthy, fresh, and affordable food to residents living in DACs, including cultural foods.
Action HEJ-7.3.5: Encourage farmers’ market operators to shift or expand their hours of operation to be at more convenient times for working families.
Action HEJ-7.3.6: Support partnerships that encourage schools to provide student gardens on school grounds and seek funding to have local farmers and community gardeners teach students about farming and gardening practices.
Action HEJ-7.3.7: Support partnerships that educate Santa Maria grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and other healthy food retailers on the importance of accepting benefit cards from low-income residents, including CalFresh Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits; and Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program benefits.
Action HEJ-7.3.8: Partner with property owners and the County Public Health Department to support innovative food microenterprises, such as home kitchen operations and mobile food facilities.
Goal HEJ-8: Meaningful and equitable public engagement. All residents have access to a variety of equitable and meaningful opportunities to participate in City activities and decisionmaking. 25 Policy HEJ-8.1: Ensure inclusive community engagement. Implement strategies to increase participation from community members who are typically not well represented in civic affairs due to various barriers.
Action HEJ-8.1.1: Employ best practices for engagement, such as:
• Scheduling meetings and public workshops at times that are convenient for residents and locating meetings in convenient and transit-accessible locations. • Prioritizing outreach efforts to community members who are most impacted by racial and social inequities, including youth of color and immigrant families. • Using outreach methods, such as flyers, schools, and social media, to engage community members and share important City information and resources.
• Offering simultaneous multilingual interpretation during public workshops and community meetings, and translating all meeting materials into Spanish and other commonly spoken local languages.
• Incorporating participatory facilitation techniques during public workshops to meaningfully engage residents in feedback conversations.
• Providing virtual attendance options for meetings.
25 Please see the Conservation and Open Space Element for additional policies and actions focused on community engagement.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 22
• Partnering with community-based organizations to offer training to residents who lack access to the internet and have limited knowledge of technology.
• Expanding partnerships with local community-based organizations and faith-based institutions to help facilitate community-based conversations and encourage active participation.
Action HEJ-8.1.2: Update the City’s Language Access Plan (LAP) on an as-needed basis to continue to provide meaningful access to City programs and activities by residents who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
Policy HEJ-8.2: Integrate equity best practices. Prioritize resources, training, and programs to promote best practices for integrating inclusivity, fairness, social equity, and justice in all City departments to strengthen their functions and improve relationships with community members.
Action HEJ-8.2.1: Provide ongoing training and capacity building to City staff on topics such as racial equity and civil rights laws, environmental and climate justice in city planning, strategies for promoting cross-cultural awareness and cultural competence, how to use a trauma-informed approach for working with different communities, and how to lead equitable community engagement strategies.
Action HEJ-8.2.2: Continue to recruit new staff who are representative of Santa Maria’s diverse population and people who can speak multiple languages to enhance communication with City services.
Policy HEJ-8.3: Encourage diverse community leadership. Support residents from underrepresented communities and diverse backgrounds to take on leadership roles for the City, fostering leadership that reflects the full demographic diversity of Santa Maria.
Action HEJ-8.3.1: Recruit community members of diverse backgrounds, races/ethnicities, physical abilities, genders, sexual orientations, and ages of Santa Maria to serve on the City Boards and Commissions.
Policy HEJ-8.4: Promote youth leadership. Engage young people, particularly high school-aged and transition-aged youth (ages 18-24 years old), to participate in City decision-making processes and decision-making bodies.
Action HEJ-8.4.1: Consider activities including:
• Continue to implement a City-led Youth Commission that can increase youth voice and young people’s perspectives in City decision-making to improve community quality of life for all. • Conduct targeted outreach to schools to involve students in the City’s land use and permitting decisions. • Partner with community-based nonprofit organizations and schools to expand their civics-related programs, school clubs, and curriculum to include lessons on environmental justice, land use planning, air pollution, and how city governments work, among other topics. • Co-host voter registration drives.
• Encourage high school-aged youth and transition-aged youth to volunteer as poll workers or become involved in City affairs.
Health and Environmental Justice Element | 23
Policy HEJ-8.5: Include residents in land use decisions. Proactively outreach to and solicit feedback from low-income residents, community-based organizations, individuals with limited English proficiency, people with disabilities, and DAC residents, among others, when making decisions on issues that impact their communities (e.g., zone changes, discretionary permit approvals, processes for brownfield cleanup, housing development, tenants’ rights policies, transportation, community benefits agreements for large development).
Policy HEJ-8.6: Develop community benefits agreements. Facilitate the creation of community benefits agreements (CBAs) for major private development projects to provide resources and mitigate pollution impacts for the benefit of local communities, especially when located in a DAC.
Action HEJ-8.6.1: Identify potential community benefits, including:
• Lower levels of environmental pollution
• Reduced car and truck traffic
• More affordable housing units
• Workforce development opportunities
• Tree and native species planting
• Shade structures for extreme heat events
• Green (e.g., trees) or gray (e.g. sound walls) barriers for noise and pollution mitigation • Community gardens and publicly accessible green space • Other investments as suggested by Santa Maria community members.
Public Facilities and
Services Element
Final Draft | May 5, 2026
This page has intentionally been left blank.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Major Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Public Facilities................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Issues and Opportunities.................................................................................................................................................13 Public Facilities and Services Policies.............................................................................................................................15 Policy Summary .............................................................................................................................................................15 Standards........................................................................................................................................................................15 Policy Framework ..........................................................................................................................................................16 Table of Figures
Figure PFS-1: Public Facilities............................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure PFS-2: K-12 Schools and Allan Hancock College............................................................................................. 8 Figure PFS-3: Police and Fire Stations........................................................................................................................... 11 This page has intentionally been left blank.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 1
Introduction
Though not a required Element, the Public Facilities and Services Element is included in the General Plan to reflect the City’s dedication to providing reliable public infrastructure, facilities, and services that support the City’s progress and overall quality of life. In the previous General Plan, these topics were addressed in the Resource Management Element.
The Public Facilities and Services Element focuses on Major Infrastructure (water, wastewater, and stormwater), Public Facilities (City-owned public buildings and libraries as well as schools), and Public Services (police, fire, and solid waste). The Recreation and Parks Element focuses on recreational facilities, community centers, and parks.
This Element consists of three main sections: Background, Issues and Opportunities, and Public Facilities and Services Policies. The Background section introduces existing conditions and trends related to priorities addressed in this Element. The Issues and Opportunities section describes the key issues and opportunities that shaped the Element. Finally, the Public Facilities and Services Policies section establishes regulatory standards and outlines the City’s Public Facilities and Services goals, policies, and implementation actions.
The Public Facilities and Services Element outlines how Santa Maria will maintain and enhance the infrastructure and services needed to support a growing community. It prioritizes reliable water, wastewater, and stormwater systems; responsive police and fire services; and accessible libraries and public buildings. The Element also ensures that newly annexed areas are well-served and that infrastructure keeps pace with development. Through strategic interdepartmental and regional coordination, Santa Maria can continue delivering high-quality infrastructure, facilities, and services that meet the needs of all residents.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 2
Santa Maria City Hall, 2025.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 3
Background
This section introduces existing conditions and trends related to priorities addressed in the Public Facilities and Services Policies.
Major Infrastructure
Water System
The City’s water portfolio contains two primary sources including groundwater from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and imported water from the State Water Project (SWP). Santa Maria’s projected water supply is expected to remain stable and consistently exceed projected water demands, ensuring long-term water reliability as the city grows. Additional information on the City’s water system can be found in the Urban Water Management Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Twitchell Dam and Reservoir
The Twitchell Dam and Reservoir, constructed in the late 1950s, provide essential flood protection and groundwater recharge that have supported the city’s growth and long-term water reliability by capturing winter storm flows and increasing recharge to the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. The Twitchell Management Authority (TMA), on which the City participates alongside regional partners, coordinates monitoring, operation, and planning for the reservoir, dam, and broader basin management to help ensure these critical infrastructure assets are maintained and operated for ongoing flood risk reduction and water resources sustainability.
Wastewater
The City’s wastewater collection and treatment system, including the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in western Santa Maria, serves most of the city. Some areas in southern Santa Maria are serviced by the Laguna County Sanitation District (LCSD). Additional information on the City’s wastewater system can be found in the Sewer System Management Plan and CIP.
City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 4
Stormwater
Both the City and Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) own and operate stormwater infrastructure within the city, including groundwater recharge basins, detention and retention basins, and flood control channels. Key components of the system include groundwater recharge basins like the Getty, Hobbs, and Kovar Basins, and flood control channels like the Battles, Blosser, Bradley, and Main Street Channels, which serve both agricultural and more urbanized parts of the city. These play a critical role in limiting discharges to the Santa Maria River and mitigating pollution.
Upper and lower photos: Battles Channel in Santa Maria.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 5
Public Facilities
Public Buildings
Public buildings are government-owned buildings and properties that house government offices and services. Most public buildings in Santa Maria are managed by the City’s Department of Public Works, which is responsible for design, capital improvements, and custodial services. Many of Santa Maria’s public facilities are located in or near the Downtown area, providing centralized access to City services for residents and businesses (See Figure PFS-1).
City Hall Annex building located on Cook Street.
Libraries
The Santa Maria Public Library System provides library services and other vital educational resources to residents of Santa Maria and the nearby unincorporated County communities. The system includes five branches, with the main library located in Santa Maria and additional branches in Orcutt, Los Alamos, Cuyama, and Guadalupe (See Figure PFS-1).
Santa Maria Public Library. Credit: Jeanne Sparks
Public Facilities and Services Element | 6
Figure PFS-1: Public Facilities
Public Facilities and Services Element | 7
Schools
Santa Maria is served by multiple school districts and institutions that offer high-quality educational opportunities from elementary school through college. The Santa Maria-Bonita School District (SMBSD)— the largest district in Santa Barbara County—operates 17 elementary and four junior high schools, while the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District (SMJUHSD) operates five campuses. 1 Three of the district’s five schools are located in Santa Maria and also serve nearby unincorporated County communities (see Figure PFS-2). The Orcutt Union School District (OUSD) operates five elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school. In addition, there are five private schools in Santa Maria: one elementary school, one high school, three K-8 schools, and one K-12 school.
Allan Hancock College, a public community college, provides accessible higher education opportunities to the region, including bachelor’s degrees offered through Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and California State University Channel Islands. Its main campus in Santa Maria is the largest of its four campuses and supports thousands of students across over 100 areas of study. These institutions form a foundation for lifelong learning and play a vital role in supporting workforce development, community enrichment, and individual advancement.
As educational services and facilities are not directly provided by the City of Santa Maria, the City's role and responsibility are limited. However, the City recognizes that to grow properly, adequate school sites must be planned for. The continued coordination and input from the area’s school districts will be imperative to identify the appropriate location for new schools as a part of planning efforts. For more information on the location and distribution of existing and future school sites, please see the Community Facility land use designation in the General Plan Land Use Map in the Land Use Element.
Santa Maria High School monument sign. Allan Hancock College. Credit: Allan Hancock College Credit: Santa Maria High School
1 Additional information on existing schools and plans for the future development of schools in the Santa Maria Bonita School District and Santa Maria Joint Union High School District can be found at www.smbsd.org and www.smjuhsd.org.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 8
Figure PFS-2: K-12 Schools and Allan Hancock College
Public Facilities and Services Element | 9
Public Services
Police
The Santa Maria Police Department, located at 1111 Betteravia Road (see Figure PFS-3), provides public safety and law enforcement services to the city’s residents. Professional police services include maintaining civil order, preventive patrol, investigations, traffic control and enforcement, criminalistics, crime prevention, drug enforcement, and abuse prevention. In addition to day-to-day operations, the Department prepares an annual report that includes information on staffing and organizational structure, crime and traffic trends, training statistics, and other departmental programs. The department houses the public safety dispatch center for police, which receives all emergency 9-1-1 and non-emergency calls for services and ensures that appropriate resources are dispatched on a timely basis.
Santa Maria Police Department. Credit: Lompoc Record
Santa Maria Police Department vehicle.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 10
Fire
The Santa Maria Fire Department provides “all-risk” emergency services, as well as public education programs, fire prevention, and life safety measures to the city's residents. The Department operates six fire stations in the city (see Figure PFS-3) as well as a Fire Prevention and Emergency Management Division.
The Department also contracts with private firms to provide additional services if and where necessary.
The Department provides emergency services, including pre-hospital emergency medical services, response to structural, and vegetation fires, vehicular accidents, hazardous materials response, water rescue, trench rescue, urban search and rescue, mass casualty, public assistance, fire and arson investigation, fire code enforcement, and disaster planning and preparedness education. The Department also administers a hazardous materials business plan program in cooperation with Santa Barbara County.
Department staff lead and maintain the City’s Emergency Response Plan and Hazard Mitigation Plan and provide technical assistance to other City Departments to ensure the continuity of operations plans and safety plans.
In addition to daily operations, the Department prepares an annual report that provides a summary of service levels, calls for service, response performance, training activities, and departmental initiatives. The Department also produces a Fire Department Long Range Master Plan to evaluate current resources and guide future staffing, facilities, apparatus, and service delivery needs to support continued growth and community safety.
Santa Maria Fire Station No. 1
Public Facilities and Services Element | 11
Figure PFS-3: Police and Fire Stations
Public Facilities and Services Element | 12
Solid Waste
The City’s Utilities Department oversees solid waste collection and disposal, prioritizing landfill diversion through recycling, composting, and various public education programs. The City currently operates the Santa Maria Regional Landfill (see Figure PFS-1). The City collection vehicles deliver recycling items to a transfer station where they are consolidated, loaded into larger vehicles, and transported to recycling centers located in San Luis Obispo County. As regulations evolve, the City continues to refine its waste management strategies to improve diversion rates, address infrastructure needs, expand key outreach opportunities, and ensure long-term compliance with State mandates.
Santa Maria Landfill
Photo of the recycling process.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 13
Issues and Opportunities
The section describes the issues and opportunities that informed the policy direction of the Public Facilities and Services Policies.
Enhanced public services. The City provides high-quality public services to residents. As the population grows and diversifies, the City will need to meet evolving community needs, including improving emergency response capabilities, expanding inclusive programming and outreach, and ensuring equitable access to information and resources. By investing in responsive, community-centered services, Santa Maria can strengthen the quality of life and maintain trust in local government. Prioritizing accessibility and equity will ensure all residents benefit from the City’s continued commitment to service excellence.
High-performing public facilities. Many of Santa Maria’s public buildings and facilities are aging and in need of upgrades to meet modern standards. Likewise, improving facility efficiency can reduce operating costs, extend building life, and enhance service delivery for residents. Regular maintenance and targeted improvements also ensure public spaces remain safe, functional, and welcoming.
Public safety. Community members have expressed concerns about crime and the need for responsive public safety services. As Santa Maria grows, it is critical to ensure police, fire, and emergency services are well-staffed and equipped to meet demand. Continued collaboration with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, including the City’s Mutual Aid Agreement with the County, can support regional coordination, improve emergency response, and expand resources for addressing complex safety challenges. Ongoing investment in community-oriented strategies will help protect residents, businesses, and visitors while strengthening public trust.
Annexation. As Santa Maria expands through annexation, the City faces the challenge of balancing infrastructure expansion with the maintenance of existing facilities and resources. For instance, while the current WWTP capacity is sufficient for present-day needs, projected flows at full build-out will exceed that capacity. Additionally, new regulatory discharge requirements will necessitate a reassessment of treatment processes and capacity. Expanding infrastructure and services to annexed areas can strain City resources and may impact the quality of upkeep in established parts of the city. It is critical for the City to prioritize phased development and cost-sharing to manage growth effectively while maintaining service quality across all neighborhoods.
.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 14
This page has intentionally been left blank.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 15
Public Facilities and Services Policies
The Public Facilities and Services Policies address the key issues and opportunities identified above and create a comprehensive roadmap for the provision and enhancement of public infrastructure, facilities, and services.
The Standards section establishes regulatory standards. A standard is a rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied.
The Policy Framework section outlines Public Facilities and Services goals, policies, and implementation actions. A goal describes the community’s desired future. A policy is a specific statement of intent that guides decision-making. An action is an activity, procedure, program, or project that carries out a policy.
Policy Summary
The goals, policies, and implementation actions of the Public Facilities and Services Element emphasize the continued provision of well-maintained infrastructure and reliable, inclusive services as the city grows.
The Element prioritizes the expansion and maintenance of essential systems such as water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure (Goals PFS-1, 2, and 3) while underscoring the need for a sustainable future through innovative approaches to waste management (Goal PFS-9) and water conservation. Strategies are centered on delivering responsive and accessible public services, maintaining infrastructure to meet the needs of both current and future residents, and ensuring that newly annexed areas receive adequate municipal services (Goal PFS-4).
Through continued investments in police and fire facilities (Goals PFS-7 and 8), expanded library services (Goal PFS-5), and modernized public buildings (Goals PFS-6), the Element promotes community safety, learning, and civic engagement. It also encourages regional coordination on issues such as groundwater management, solid waste, and school planning (Goal PFS-10). The Element builds on the principles of community health and natural resilience to ensure that Santa Maria remains a vibrant and well-served city where all residents can thrive.
Standards
This section establishes standards and levels of service that determine the development, maintenance, and improvement of public facilities and services in Santa Maria. These standards ensure equity, efficiency, and quality in service delivery while supporting the City’s long-term goals.
Library Standards
The City’s library service ratio is 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 1.5 to 2 books per capita (Policy PFS-5.1:). For more on library services, see Libraries.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 16
Policy Framework
Major Infrastructure
Goal PFS-1: Public infrastructure. Public infrastructure provides a high level of service for the existing population and keeps pace with planned growth.
Policy PFS-1.1: Resource and infrastructure capacities. Maintain resource and infrastructure standards and capacities to meet the city’s existing and future needs.
Action PFS-1.1.1: Conduct an analysis of the impacts of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and increased density on public services and infrastructure, identifying areas where these changes may require system upgrades to maintain service levels.
Action PFS-1.1.2: Review and update the City’s Growth Mitigation Program (Assembly Bill 1600 fees) to ensure it effectively addresses the impacts of a growing population and infrastructure demands.
Policy PFS-1.2: Wastewater system. Maintain a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system capable of meeting the daily and peak demand of existing and future residents and businesses.
Goal PFS-2: Water resources. High-quality drinking water supply meets existing and future water demands. 2
Policy PFS-2.1: Water system. Maintain and expand the existing water system to meet the daily and peak demands of existing and future residents and businesses.
Policy PFS-2.2: Supply portfolio. Improve the reliability of the water supply for current and projected demand by diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio, including maintaining and increasing the City’s groundwater wells, exploring additional sources of water supply, and supporting the State Water project.
Policy PFS-2.3: Groundwater. Improve the long-term recharge of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin by retaining natural watershed areas, developing regional recharge basins, and minimizing impervious surfaces in new development.
Policy PFS-2.4: Regional coordination. Participate in regional coordination targeting aquifer recharge and sustainable groundwater supply.
2 Please see the Safety and Conservation and Open Space Elements for additional policies and actions focused on water resources, groundwater, and water quality.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 17
Policy PFS-2.5: Water quality. Ensure the potable water supply meets all federal and State water quality standards.
Action PFS-2.5.1: Monitor and treat, if necessary, public drinking water to meet safe drinking water standards.
Policy PFS-2.6: Efficient water use. Participate in and implement programs and measures that promote the efficient use of water.
Goal PFS-3: Stormwater management. The stormwater management system mitigates flood risks, enhances water quality, and promotes environmental health. 3 Policy PFS-3.1: Conveyance of surface drainage. Convey surface drainage safely through the use of retardation basins, storm drains, recharge basins, and other infrastructure.
Action PFS-3.1.1: Continue to update relevant City plans to address stormwater management, improve flood resilience, and reduce the impact of surface runoff.
Action PFS-3.1.2: Study a potential assessment district for funding regional stormwater programs.
Action PFS-3.1.3: Review and update the City’s Grading and Drainage Standards.
Action PFS-3.1.4: Implement capital improvement projects to prevent impacts from localized flooding events.
Goal PFS-4: Annexation. Infrastructure, parks, and recreational facilities meet the needs of newly annexed parts of the city.
Policy PFS-4.1: Recreational and park facilities. Develop recreational and park facilities in annexed areas to meet the needs of new residents, following standards for equitable access to parks and integrating recreational amenities into neighborhood planning.
Policy PFS-4.2: Infrastructure and municipal services. Ensure that annexed areas receive adequate infrastructure and municipal services, aligning with the City's overall growth plan.
Policy PFS-4.3: Schools. Collaborate with local school districts to identify and reserve appropriate sites for new schools in annexed areas.
3 Please see the Safety and Conservation and Open Space Elements for additional stormwater management policies and actions.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 18
Libraries
Goal PFS-5: High-quality libraries. An accessible, modern library system fosters lifelong learning, facilitates community engagement, and supports youth development through innovative services and resources. 4
Policy PFS-5.1: Library service. Maintain a ratio of 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 1.5 to 2 books per capita to keep library services apace with community growth.
Policy PFS-5.2: Accessible libraries. Promote equitable access to library services through ADA compliance, branch locations, mobile libraries, online resources for existing and future residents, and collaborations with school districts.
Policy PFS-5.3: Youth and after-school programming. Expand library programming that supports youth education, literacy, and enrichment through after-school and summer programs.
Public Buildings
Goal PFS-6: Publicly owned buildings. City-owned buildings effectively serve public needs, honor historic assets, and provide adaptable, multi-use spaces that evolve alongside the community. 5
Policy PFS-6.1: City Hall and area governmental services. Maintain and enhance City Hall as a central hub for government services and community engagement by ensuring accessibility, modernizing facilities, and creating a welcoming environment for residents.
Policy PFS-6.2: Attractive and water-efficient landscaping. Design new and renovated landscaping at all City buildings to efficiently use water.
Policy PFS-6.3: Historic City-owned buildings. Preserve and rehabilitate historic City-owned buildings to maintain their cultural and architectural significance.
Policy PFS-6.4: Energy efficiency. To reduce operating and maintenance costs, identify opportunities for environmental performance improvements (e.g., rooftop solar, equipment replacements, audits, retro-commissioning, and building retrofits) to City-owned buildings.
Policy PFS-6.5: Strategic siting. Promote the co-location of public parks and City facilities to enhance access to services and green space.
4 Please see the Health and Environmental Justice Element for additional policies and actions focused on public facilities. 5 Please see the Safety Element for policies and actions focused on critical facilities and related resilience/adaptation improvements as well as the Health and Environmental Justice Element for additional policies and actions focused on public facilities.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 19
Policy PFS-6.6: Multi-use facilities. Design new City-owned buildings to be adaptable for multiple uses by integrating flexible floor plans and multi-functional spaces that support diverse community needs, gatherings, and events.
Policy PFS-6.7: Civic Arts Center. Support the development of a Civic Arts Center to showcase Santa Maria’s diverse cultural talent. Collaborate with community partners to identify a suitable site, secure funding, and ensure the facility serves as both a cultural hub and an economic driver for the city.
Police
Goal PFS-7: Police facilities. Well-planned police facilities ensure public safety and ensure effective, responsive policing. 6
Policy PFS-7.1: Strategic facilities siting. Locate police facilities to provide efficient coverage and improve response times throughout the city, strategically situating services to ensure broad access and address areas with higher emergency needs.
Fire
Goal PFS-8: Fire protection facilities and services. A highly effective fire protection system with well-planned facilities safeguards lives, property, and environmental resources. 7 Policy PFS-8.1: Fire protection facilities. Continue monitoring the City's existing and projected fire protection service levels to inform facilities siting and resource allocation.
Solid Waste
Goal PFS-9: Solid waste systems. An efficient, sustainable solid waste system minimizes landfill use, advances recycling efforts, and fosters regional cooperation to reduce environmental impact. 8
Policy PFS-9.1: Waste diversion. Divert waste to meet State and federal mandates, focusing on community education, recycling programs, and incentives that reduce landfill dependency.
Policy PFS-9.2: Waste reduction through design. Promote sustainable building practices that reduce waste generation by encouraging developers to incorporate materials reuse, waste reduction, and recycling into their designs.
6 Please see the Safety Element for policies and actions related to police response times. 7 Please see the Safety Element for additional fire policies and actions. 8 Please see the Safety and Health and Environmental Justice Elements for hazardous waste policies and actions.
Public Facilities and Services Element | 20
Policy PFS-9.3: Regional cooperation. Collaborate with other agencies to develop coordinated waste management solutions, supporting a unified approach to recycling, waste diversion, and sustainable practices.
Schools
Goal PFS-10: Public and private schools. A collaborative relationship with educational institutions delivers high-quality education, provides safe and supportive environments, and enriches the lives of students and community members alike. 9 Policy PFS-10.1: School enrollment. Continue to work with the Santa Maria-Bonita School District, Orcutt Union School District, private schools, and charter schools to monitor local K-12 enrollment and plan for impacts related to growth or decline.
Policy PFS-10.2: School siting. Work with public school districts, private schools, and charter schools to identify potential school sites to meet future growth, while being sensitive to adjacent uses. For more on land use conflicts, see Land Use Goal LU-13.
Policy PFS-10.3: Educational programming and afterschool care. Partner with schools to expand access to educational and afterschool programming that is affordable, inclusive, and supportive of working families.
Policy PFS-10.4: Hancock College. Support the expansion of Hancock College's facilities and services outlined in their Facilities Master Plan in a manner that is compatible with the existing campus and surrounding neighborhoods.
9 Please see the Economic Development Element for policies and actions related to educational opportunities and the Health and Environmental Justice Element for additional policies and actions focused on public facilities and childcare.
Recreation and Parks
Element
Final Draft | May 5, 2026
This page has intentionally been left blank.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Recreation........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Parks ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan............................................................................................................. 8 Issues and Opportunities.................................................................................................................................................12 Recreation and Parks Policies......................................................................................................................................... 14 Policy Summary .............................................................................................................................................................15 Standards........................................................................................................................................................................16 Policy Framework ..........................................................................................................................................................17 Table of Figures
Figure REC-1: Recreational Facilities................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure REC-2: Trail System................................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure REC-3: Existing Parks............................................................................................................................................. 9 Table of Tables
Table REC-1: Recreational Facilities................................................................................................................................. 4 Table REC-2: Park Facilities..............................................................................................................................................10 Table REC-3: Recreational Facilities Standards............................................................................................................16 This page has intentionally been left blank.
Recreation and Parks Element | 1
Introduction
Though not a required Element, the Recreation and Parks Element is included in the General Plan to reflect the City’s dedication to providing high-quality recreational and park facilities and programming for all residents. In the previous General Plan, these topics were addressed in the Resource Management Element.
The Recreation and Parks Element focuses on recreational facilities, trails, recreational programming, arts and culture programming, and parks.
This Element consists of three main sections: Background, Issues and Opportunities, and Recreation and Parks Policies. The Background section introduces existing conditions and trends related to priorities addressed in this Element. The Issues and Opportunities section describes the key issues and opportunities that shaped the Element. Finally, the Recreation and Parks Policies section establishes regulatory standards and outlines the City’s Recreation and Parks goals, policies, and implementation actions.
The Recreation and Parks Element guides the development of a high-quality recreation and parks system that serves all Santa Maria residents. It prioritizes equitable access to modern recreational facilities, a comprehensive trails system, well-maintained parks, and inclusive programming for all ages and backgrounds. The Element also ensures that new neighborhoods and historically underserved areas receive adequate park and recreational facilities. Through strategic investments, partnerships, and sustainable design, Santa Maria can provide a connected and vibrant system of parks and recreation amenities.
Recreation and Parks Administrative Office
Recreation and Parks Element | 2
This page has intentionally been left blank.
Recreation and Parks Element | 3
Background
This section introduces existing conditions and trends related to priorities addressed in the Recreation and Parks Policies.
Recreation
Facilities and Programming
The City of Santa Maria owns and operates a youth center, senior center, aquatics center, public green, and seven community centers (see Table REC-1, Figure REC-1) that support aquatics, youth and teen services, senior programs, arts, sports, and special events. As of 2026, the City is constructing a new Sports Complex in the Blosser Southeast Area 5B Specific Plan area to expand athletic facilities and programming opportunities for residents. The roughly 21-acre complex is intended to provide additional multipurpose playing fields and supporting amenities to address ongoing demand for youth and adult sports, while also creating flexible space for community events. This investment supports the City’s broader recreation system by increasing capacity and enhancing opportunities for organized and informal sports programming.
The City also supplements its facilities through joint use of school gyms and fields and private providers such as the YMCA and Boys and Girls Club. Additional private recreational amenities that the City does not own or maintain benefit residents who have access to these amenities.
Paddleboard Yoga Class at the Paul Nelson Aquatics Center.
Recreation and Parks Element | 4
Table REC-1: Recreational Facilities
Facility Type Address
Abel Maldonado Community Youth Center Youth community center 600 S. McClelland Street Atkinson Park Community Center Community center 1000 N. Railroad Avenue Blosser Ranch Sports Complex Recreation (Sports fields, playgrounds)
Southwest corner of Stowell
Road and Depot Street
Bob Orach Park Neighborhood Community Center Community center 1800 Westgate Road Edwards Community Center (at Sierra Vista Park) Community center 809 Panther Drive Elwin Mussell Senior Center (at Alice Trefts Park) Senior center 510 E. Park Avenue Grogan Park Community Center Community center 1155 W. Rancho Verde Hagerman Sports Complex Recreation (sports fields) 3300 Skyway Drive Joslyn Bowling Green Public green 420 S. McClelland Street Maramonte Community Center Community center 620 E. Sunrise Drive Minami Community Center (at Adam Park) Community center 600 W. Enos Drive Newlove Community Building Community building 1619 S. Thornburg Street Paul Nelson Aquatic Center (at Simas Park) Aquatic center 516 S. McClelland Street Veterans’ Memorial Community Center Community center 313 W. Tunnel Street Source: City of Santa Maria, 2020
Trail System
Santa Maria’s trail system includes 4.7 miles of Class 1 shared-use paths, 7.1 miles of trails within City limits, and an additional 14 miles of trails at Los Flores Ranch Park (see Figure REC-2). The City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) covers the planning, maintenance, and enhancement of the trails system. The most recently adopted ATP (2020) proposes improvements to existing trail amenities, including wayfinding, seating, lighting, and a planned increase to 26.3 miles of Class 1 shared-use paths.
Recreation and Parks Element | 5
Figure REC-1: Recreational Facilities
Recreation and Parks Element | 6
Figure REC-2: Trail System
*While the Levee Trail is owned by the
Santa Barbara County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, the
City maintains a use agreement and
provides maintenance and litter
clean-up.
Recreation and Parks Element | 7
Parks
The City of Santa Maria owns and maintains 30 parks (see Figure REC-3, Table REC-2). Additional park facilities include Los Flores Ranch Park and County-managed parks such as Waller and Orcutt Community Parks.
Multiple children playing at Russell Park located on the west side of the City.
Children playing at Acquistapace Park.
Recreation and Parks Element | 8
Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan
The Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan is updated every five years to reflect recreational trends and demographic shifts in the planning of recreation and park services improvements. The Plan is developed by the Recreation and Parks Department and the Recreation and Parks Commission, with input from Santa Maria community members. The Plan assesses community priorities, evaluates progress, and establishes goals for recreation and park programs and facilities. The Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan will be one of the primary means of implementing the Recreation and Parks Element.
Top left: Adult playing pickleball at the
Hagerman Sports Complex.
Top right: Teens gather for a basketball
tournament at the Abel Maldonado
Community Youth Center.
Bottom: Children play with an inflatable
soccer goal at a community event hosted
by the Recreation and Parks Department.
Recreation and Parks Element | 9
Figure REC-3: Existing Parks
Recreation and Parks Element | 10
Table REC-2: Park Facilities
Park Total Acreage
Adam Park 32.47
Alice Trefts Park 5.05
Armstrong Park 2.71
Atkinson Park 7.55
Buena Vista Park 4.03
DeJoy Pocket Park 0.16
Enos Ranch Park 6.22
Fletcher Park 2.83
Grogan Park 6.15
Jim May Park 15.59
Joe White Park 2.5
Maramonte Park (South) 3.56
Maramonte Park (North) 5.31
Marilyn Stanley Park 1.98
Memorial Park 4.42
North Preisker Ranch Park 3.03
Oakley Park 6.36
Simas Park 12.53*
Pioneer Park 15
Preisker Park 38.93
Rice Park 2.5
Robert Aquistapace Park 1.8
Rodenberger Park 5.13
Rosalind Perlman Park 2.87
Rotary Centennial Park 16.9
Russell Park 1.36
Sierra Vista (Edwards) Park 6.5
Taylor Pocket Park 0.15
Teresa Machado Plaza 0.67
Recreation and Parks Element | 11
Park Total Acreage
Tunnell Park 6.68
Westgate Ranch (Bob Orach Park) 2.35
*Acreage includes Paul Nelson Aquatic Center, Abel Maldonado Community Youth Center, and Elk’s Field Source: Santa Maria Recreation and Parks Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan, 2025.
Children’s playground at North Preisker Ranch Park.
Recreation and Parks Element | 12
This page has intentionally been left blank.
Recreation and Parks Element | 13
Issues and Opportunities
This section describes the issues and opportunities that informed the Recreation and Parks Policies.
Equitable access to parks and recreation facilities. As of 2020, Santa Maria’s park service ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents fell short of the City’s goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Notable underserved areas include:
• The northwest, between Blosser Road, Taylor Street, Broadway (SR-135), and Donovan Road; • Portions of the area north of Main Street, between Broadway and US-101 and east of US-101; • The area north of Stowell Road, east of Broadway, south of Main Street (SR-166), and west of US101; and, • The residential area north of Betteravia Road, east of Blosser Road, south of Battles Road, and west of Broadway
Access to recreational facilities is limited in some areas of the city, but most residential areas are planned with parks that are accessible, many within walking distance. As the city grows, it will be critical to close these service gaps by prioritizing park development in underserved areas, improving access through jointuse agreements, and investing in mobile facilities. For instance, the development of the planned Sports Complex represents an opportunity to expand access to athletic facilities and relieve pressure on existing facilities by providing additional capacity for youth and adult sports programming.
Park quality and capacity. Population growth over the last 25 to 30 years has contributed to overcrowding at many parks, and this trend is expected to continue unless new parkland is added or existing facilities are expanded. To meet the City’s park service goal today would require over 270 acres of new parkland, and over 440 acres by 2050. In addition to park expansion, it will be important to optimize underutilized portions of existing parks and to incorporate new parks into future Specific Plans.
Safety and accessibility in park design. Park access is limited for some residents due to safety concerns related to lighting, visibility, and street crossings. Improving safety with lighting, marked crosswalks, and clear sightlines can increase comfort and encourage use, particularly for children, seniors, and individuals with limited mobility. Ensuring that parks incorporate universal design principles and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access will also help create safer, more welcoming facilities.
Arts, culture, and community identity. Santa Maria can strengthen its cultural identity through an expanded arts and culture program. Integrating performances and culturally diverse events can build community pride, celebrate diversity, and activate underutilized spaces. By implementing the Public Art Master Plan, the City has the opportunity to beautify its public spaces while showcasing Santa Maria’s rich history, ethnic diversity, and appreciation for the arts. Partnerships with local artists and cultural organizations can help expand programming, attract broader participation, and reinforce parks as vital community centers.
Annexation and growth. As Santa Maria continues to grow through annexation, the City must ensure that new neighborhoods receive adequate parks and recreation services. Phased development, sustainable design, and innovative funding strategies can help the City maintain high-quality park and recreation services while accommodating future growth.
Recreation and Parks Element | 14
Top left: Musicians playing at a community event; Top right: Community members painting a utility box; Bottom left: Public Art on utility boxes; Bottom right Image: Performers at a local cultural event.
Mural painted at Machado Plaza in Santa Maria’s Downtown.
Recreation and Parks Element | 15
Recreation and Parks Policies
The Recreation and Parks policies are organized into two sections that, together, create a comprehensive roadmap for the maintenance and enhancement of recreational and parks facilities and programming.
The Standards and Diagrams section defines regulatory requirements. Standards establish levels of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied, while diagrams visually illustrate the intent or application of specific policies.
The Policy Framework section outlines Recreation and Parks goals, policies, and implementation actions. A goal describes the community’s desired future. A policy is a specific statement of intent that guides decision-making. An action is an activity, procedure, program, or project that carries out a policy.
Policy Summary
The goals, policies, and implementation actions of the Recreation and Parks Element respond to Santa Maria’s evolving needs by promoting a modern, well-maintained, and accessible parks and recreation system.
The Element emphasizes expanding and upgrading parks and recreational facilities to meet service standards and accommodate a growing population, while improving connectivity through a comprehensive trails system and shared use of public lands (Goals REC-1 and REC-2).
The Element advances diverse and inclusive recreational programming, including mobile programs, cultural activities, and targeted outreach in multiple languages to foster diversity and ensure all residents can participate (Goal REC-3). The Element also establishes a process for monitoring community needs so that the City can respond proactively (Goal REC-4), while emphasizing equity and targeted investment in underserved neighborhoods (Goal REC-5).
To ensure long-term effectiveness of the system, the Element focuses on maintenance, safety, and costeffective management strategies (Goal REC-6) as well as partnerships with schools, nonprofits, and the private sector to expand access and resources (Goal REC-7). Finally, the Element prioritizes environmental resilience and biodiversity through green infrastructure, sustainable landscaping, and the dual use of infrastructure for recreation and flood protection (Goal REC-8).
Recreation and Parks Element | 16
Standards
This section establishes standards and levels of service that determine the development, maintenance, and improvement of recreational and park facilities in Santa Maria. These standards ensure accessible, highquality facilities while supporting the City’s long-term goals.
Recreational Facilities Standards
The City’s recreational facilities standards are outlined in Table REC-3 (Policy REC-1.1:).
Table REC-3: Recreational Facilities Standards
Classification Standard: Unit / People
Youth Baseball/Softball Field 1 unit/6,000
Adult Softball Field 1 unit/10,000
Regulation Baseball (lighted) Field 1 unit/30,000
Soccer Field 1 unit/5,000
Football Field 1 unit/50,000
Tennis Court (lighted) 1 unit/2,000
Handball/Racquetball Court 1 unit/3,000
Community Center Building (4,000-8,000 sq ft) 1 unit/25,000 Social-Cultural Center (15,000-20,000 sq ft) 1 unit/75,000 Performing Arts Center (20,000-30,000 sq ft) 1 unit/75,000 Senior Center (10,000-15,000 sq ft) 1 unit/50,000
Visual Arts Workshop Studio 1 unit/50,000
Gymnasium (12,000-14,000 sq ft) 1 unit/25,000
Community Swimming Pool 1 unit/20,000
Aquatic Center (extended season; handicapped) 1 unit/50,000 Park Standard
The City’s park standard is 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents (Policy REC-2.1).1 Playground at a public park
1 For the purposes of this standard, the total acreage includes both parks and recreational facilities.
Recreation and Parks Element | 17
Policy Framework
Goal REC-1: Modern recreational facilities. A comprehensive and well-integrated system of modern recreational facilities is accessible to all Santa Maria residents.
Policy REC-1.1: Facilities standards. Maintain the standards outlined in Table REC-3 as recreational facilities are renovated and expanded.
Policy REC-1.2: Temporary facilities. Construct and maintain temporary recreational facilities to address short-term needs or serve areas awaiting permanent facility development. Temporary amenities should meet basic recreational needs and be removed or upgraded once permanent facilities are available.
Policy REC-1.3: Multi-use public lands. Promote the shared use of public lands where feasible for recreational purposes.
Policy REC-1.4: Existing facilities. Ensure existing recreational facilities and infrastructure are equally maintained in light of planned facilities in newly annexed parts of the city.
Policy REC-1.5: Trail system. Develop a system of accessible, well-maintained trails2 that connects neighborhoods, parks, and open spaces and supports multiple uses, such as walking, biking, and running.
Action REC-1.5.1: Expand the scope of the City’s Active Transportation Plan to create a new, more robust Trail System Master Plan.
Action REC-1.5.2: Implement and regularly update the Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan to enable safe pedestrian and cyclist connections to recreational facilities.
Goal REC-2: High-quality parks. A robust network of high-quality parks meets the diverse needs of all Santa Maria residents.
3 Policy REC-2.1: Park standard. Maintain the City’s standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, primarily in areas directly adjacent to residential and commercial developments.
Action REC-2.1.1: Adopt a park classification system to support strategic growth and management of park facilities.
2 Please see the City’s Active Transportation Plan for a map of all trails. 3 Please see the Health and Environmental Justice Element for policies and actions focused on parks and facilities improvements in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Recreation and Parks Element | 18
Policy REC-2.2: Mitigation fees. Require developers to pay park mitigation fees to ensure that new developments contribute to the expansion and rehabilitation of parks facilities.4 Action REC-2.2.1: Regularly review and update park mitigation fees to reflect current needs and construction costs.
Policy REC-2.3: Park grants. Pursue federal, state, and regional grant opportunities to support the development, improvement, and maintenance of parks and facilities.
Goal REC-3: Inclusive programming. A diverse array of programming is inclusive, engaging, and responsive to the community, strengthening resident wellness, social connection, and cultural engagement.
Policy REC-3.1: Inclusive programming. Offer inclusive and diverse recreational programming that meets the varied needs of all residents, including programs in Spanish, Mixteco, and Tagalog.
Policy REC-3.2: Mobile programming. Implement mobile recreational activities to reach underserved areas, bringing programs directly to neighborhoods to ensure equitable access to recreation across the city.
Policy REC-3.3: Arts and culture. Incorporate public art, cultural activities, and musical and theater performances into park spaces to foster community identity. When possible, partner with Santa Maria-based artists and organizations.5
Action REC-3.3.1: Implement the City’s Public Art Master Plan by collaborating with stakeholders, artists, and arts organizations to enhance public spaces and celebrate the city’s rich arts heritage.
Policy REC-3.4: Community events. Continue to promote local community events that celebrate the city’s cultural diversity, foster neighborhood pride, and strengthen community bonds. Facilitate events in public spaces, parks, and community centers, prioritizing activities that are inclusive, accessible, and reflective of residents' interests.
Policy REC-3.5: Youth and senior programming. Expand programs for youth and seniors, as necessary, to support healthy lifestyles and social connections, fostering physical activity, creative expression, and intergenerational community-building.
Policy REC-3.6: Aquatics. Continue to develop and expand aquatic programs and facilities to promote water safety, swimming skills, and recreational enjoyment for residents of all ages and abilities.
4 Please see the Land Use and Circulation Elements for additional policies and actions related to development impact and mitigation fees.
5 Please see the Conservation and Open Space Element for additional cultural resource policies and actions.
Recreation and Parks Element | 19
Policy REC-3.7: Marketing and outreach. Use social media, community events, and partnerships with local organizations to increase awareness and participation in the City’s recreation and parks programs.
Goal REC-4: Conditions and demand monitoring. Recreational and park facilities are safe, functional, accessible, and meet City standards.
Policy REC-4.1: Facilities monitoring. Monitor growth and demographics to anticipate demand for recreational and park facilities to ensure adequate amenities are available to serve both existing and future residents.
Action REC-4.1.1: Implement and regularly update the Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan to guide investment in community facilities, ensuring balanced support for both structured and unstructured recreation spaces.
Action REC-4.1.2: Update the Leisure Needs Assessment and Action Plan every 5 years to support the planning, development, operation, and funding of recreational and park facilities and programs in the planning area. The Assessment will also evaluate the conditions of these facilities and programs to ensure City standards are being met.
Action REC-4.1.3: Designate opportunity areas where future investments should be prioritized, with a specific focus on disadvantaged communities and historically underinvested neighborhoods.
Goal REC-5: Park access. Equitable and barrier-free parks and recreational spaces are accessible for all Santa Maria residents, with facilities that are well distributed and inclusive to residents of all ages and abilities.6
Policy REC-5.1: Park distribution. Strive to provide an equitable distribution of park facilities across all neighborhoods, with a focus on addressing gaps in underserved areas by prioritizing park development in areas with limited access.
Action REC-5.1.1: Create a citywide map indicating parks, open spaces, and walking distances to each to identify gaps in access and address equitable distribution of facilities.
Policy REC-5.2: Universal design. Incorporate universal design principles in the development and renovation of parks to ensure that recreational spaces are usable by people of all ages and abilities.
Design parks to include accessible paths, inclusive playgrounds, and other amenities that accommodate individuals with disabilities, ensuring full participation and enjoyment for all.
Policy REC-5.3: Senate Bill 1000 neighborhoods. Target new park improvements in Senate Bill (SB) 1000 disadvantaged communities (DACs) to improve public health outcomes, reduce heat island effects, and address long-standing inequities in access to park space. 6 Please see the Health and Environmental Justice Element for policies and actions focused on park access.
Recreation and Parks Element | 20
Policy REC-5.4: Nuisance mitigation. Avoid locating parks near high-volume roads, highways, or other sources of pollution to minimize exposure to noise, air pollution, and safety hazards. When proximity to such infrastructure is unavoidable, incorporate design features such as sound barriers, vegetation buffers, and safe crossings to mitigate potential health impacts.7 Goal REC-6: Amenities and maintenance. Recreational and park facilities are well maintained.
Policy REC-6.1: Facilities maintenance. Conduct routine maintenance of recreational and park facilities, including upkeep, repairs, and enhancements to ensure long-term usability and safety.
Policy REC-6.2: Maintenance districts. Require that residential and commercial developments that require a conditional use or planned development permit be annexed into a Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) and, depending upon the amount of proposed public easement landscaping, a Special Benefit Zone (SBZ).
Policy REC-6.3: Cost-efficient maintenance. Implement cost-effective maintenance strategies for parks facilities to ensure long-term sustainability, such as drought-tolerant landscaping and the use of smart irrigation technologies to reduce operational costs.
Action REC-6.3.1: Study potential maintenance funding mechanisms and develop strategies to seek sustained funding, which may include the following: funding from public and private partners; bonds and tax measures; assessment districts; and expanding fee-based recreational programming and leasing agreements.
Policy REC-6.4: Safety. Promote safety in parks by implementing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) features—such as adequate lighting, clear sightlines, surveillance, and strategic landscaping—and supporting Park Rangers tasked with patrols of park facilities.
Policy REC-6.5: Vandalism. Reduce vandalism through proactive strategies such as regular maintenance and the use of vandal-resistant materials.
Policy REC-6.6: Community support. Create a network of volunteers to assist in maintaining park and recreational areas. Consider mobilizing after-school programs, local businesses, and non-profit organizations to assist with small maintenance, landscaping, and clean-up projects. 7 Please see the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, and Health and Environmental Justice Elements for policies and actions related to land use conflicts.
Recreation and Parks Element | 21
Goal REC-7: Partnerships. Partnerships with public and private entities expand access to recreational and park facilities and services to maximize the availability of resources for the community.
Policy REC-7.1: Joint use agreements. Increase recreational resources through continued coordination with the Santa Maria school districts, Allan Hancock Community College, and Santa Barbara County.
Policy REC-7.2: County facilities. Facilitate access to County-owned recreational facilities for city residents through cooperative agreements, ensuring that City and County assets complement one another to provide seamless service.
Policy REC-7.3: Public-private partnerships. Encourage public-private partnerships to enhance recreational amenities and programming where public amenities are not available.
Policy REC-7.4: Programming partnerships. Partner with local organizations to develop a multipurpose recreational facility for outdoor events.
Goal REC-8: Resilient parks. Parks and recreational spaces are resilient to environmental challenges and enhance local biodiversity.
8 Policy REC-8.1: Protection of open space. Preserve and expand open spaces in public parks that provide ecological and scenic benefits for residents.
Policy REC-8.2: Flood protection. Incorporate flood management strategies into park areas, utilizing green spaces for stormwater detention to reduce flood risk and enhance public safety.
Policy REC-8.3: Dual-use infrastructure. New and existing retardation basins, drainage easements, utility easements, and open space corridors may be improved for recreational purposes as conditions to development – but only when the infrastructure is deemed to serve a public benefit, such as a regional recreation space for use by the general public (e.g. sports field). In such cases, the design, configuration, size, and public access must meet the requirements of the Recreation and Parks Department and the Public Works Department.
Policy REC-8.4: Sustainable landscaping. Promote the use of native plants and drought-tolerant landscaping to enhance ecological value, reduce water consumption, and support local wildlife. 8 Please see the Conservation and Open Space Element for additional policies and actions focused on open space, natural habitat, stormwater management, and biodiversity.
Recreation and Parks Element | 22
Policy REC-8.5: Tree canopy and shade. Expand tree canopy coverage in parks to provide shade, reduce urban heat island effects, and enhance visitor comfort.9 Policy REC-8.6: Biodiversity. Support biodiversity in parks and open spaces by integrating ecological design elements and educational signage to enhance public awareness of urban conservation.
Policy REC-8.7: Green infrastructure. Incorporate green infrastructure elements, such as bioswales and permeable surfaces, into parks to manage stormwater and improve water quality. 9 See the Conservation and Open Space Element for additional urban forestry policies and actions.
Economic Development
Element
Final Draft | May 5, 2026
This page has intentionally been left blank.
Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Local Industry.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Partnerships and Regional Collaboration.................................................................................................................. 4 Tourism ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Issues and Opportunities.................................................................................................................................................. 6 Economic Development Policies..................................................................................................................................... 8 Policy Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Policy Framework ..........................................................................................................................................................10 Table of Figures Figure ECON-1: Primary Industries and Occupations in Santa Maria ...................................................................... 3 This page has intentionally been left blank.
Economic Development Element | 1
Introduction
Though not a required Element, the Economic Development Element is included in the General Plan to reflect the City’s dedication to providing economic opportunities for all residents, supporting local businesses, and improving the City’s overall fiscal health. The Economic Development Element focuses on workforce development, local industry, education partnerships, regional partnerships, and tourism.
This Element consists of three main sections: Background, Issues and Opportunities, and Economic Development Policies. The Background section introduces existing conditions and trends related to priorities addressed in this Element. The Issues and Opportunities section describes the key issues and opportunities that shaped the Element. Finally, the Economic Development Policies section outlines the City’s Economic Development goals, policies, and implementation actions.
The Economic Development Element provides a framework for fostering a diverse and resilient economy in Santa Maria. It supports high-quality jobs, educational and workforce development opportunities, and a business-friendly environment that encourages innovation and investment. The Element emphasizes the revitalization of commercial corridors and the Downtown area, support for key industries, and the enhancement of infrastructure and housing diversity to meet the needs of a growing community. Through regional collaboration, targeted industry support, and an expanded tourism sector, Santa Maria can bolster economic opportunities, strengthen its identity, and advance long-term prosperity for residents and businesses.
Enos Ranchos Shopping Center on Betteravia Road.
Economic Development Element | 2
Santa Maria Town Center in Downtown Santa Maria. Credit: Spinoso Real Estate Group Economic Development Element | 3
Background
This section introduces existing conditions and trends related to priorities addressed in the Economic Development Policies. Additional background information can be found in Appendix A: Existing Conditions Reports.
Local Industry
Santa Maria’s agriculture and manufacturing sectors contribute significantly to local employment and economic activity (see occupationsFigure ECON-1). The city’s location near Vandenberg Space Force Base has also strengthened local aerospace and defense-related industries. Roughly 40 percent of employed Santa Maria residents work within the city, while the remainder commute to surrounding areas such as Orcutt, Nipomo, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Vandenberg Space Force Base, highlighting Santa Maria’s role within the broader regional labor market. occupationsFigure ECON-1: Primary Industries and Occupations in Santa Maria Source: American Communities Survey, 5-Year Estimate (2023) Agriculture
Agriculture is an important part of the economy in Santa Barbara County. In 2023, the total gross value of agricultural crops and products was $1,875,978,000 (County of Santa Barbara 2024). More specifically, agriculture has been a substantial part of Santa Maria’s economy since the early 20th century, with the region's fertile soils and favorable climate supporting a variety of crops. The Santa Maria Valley is particularly known for its strawberries, which are a major contributor to the local economy. Other important crops include wine grapes, broccoli, and cauliflower, which benefit from the region's temperate climate and productive soils.
Economic Development Element | 4
Partnerships and Regional Collaboration
The City works closely with several local and regional economic development organizations, including the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce, REACH Central Coast, and EconAlliance. These organizations support various initiatives related to business development, workforce alignment, and regional planning.
Santa Maria also partners with local educational institutions, namely Allan Hancock College and the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District, to support job training and workforce development.
Credit: Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce
Credit: Reach Central Coast
Credit: EconAlliance
Credit: Allan Hancock College
Economic Development Element | 5
Tourism
Santa Maria is known for its Santa Maria-style barbecue, agricultural heritage, and proximity to natural attractions like the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes. Farmers’ markets, farm-to-table restaurants, annual festivals such as the Strawberry Festival and Santa Barbara County Fair, the Elks Rodeo, and vintners’ events support agricultural tourism. The city also benefits from its location near Vandenberg Space Force Base, where aerospace launches have the potential to attract visitors from across the state.
Credit: Santa Barbara County Fair.
Santa Maria Elks Rodeo Parade. Credit: Elks Lodge #1538.
Economic Development Element | 6
Agricultural fields in the Santa Maria Valley.
Santa Maria Strawberry Festival. Credit: KSBY News
Economic Development Element | 7
Issues and Opportunities
This section describes the issues and opportunities that informed the Economic Development Policies.
Workforce development and educational alignment. Santa Maria has a strong foundation in education and workforce services, supported by institutions such as Allan Hancock College and Santa Maria Joint Union High School District’s Mark Richardson Career Technical Education Center, as well as programs like Build Your Workforce and the America’s Job Center of California. Santa Maria Joint Union High School District and Allan Hancock College also offer college and career readiness programs for students, such as the College Readiness and Career Technical Education (CTE) Pathway, to strengthen the connection between education and workforce development. While the City has expanded opportunities for higher-paying jobs in manufacturing, the medical field, and agriculture, the limited availability of higher-wage jobs and more advanced training remains a challenge. Strengthening local partnerships can help Santa Maria grow a more skilled, locally employed workforce.
Support for target industries. Agriculture and manufacturing remain the backbone of Santa Maria’s economy, and the city is well-positioned to attract high-growth sectors like aerospace, health care, renewable energy, and agricultural technology (ag-tech). The city’s relatively affordable cost of living, development-friendly environment, and proximity to Vandenberg Space Force Base enhance its competitiveness in these sectors. However, limited land availability may limit the city’s economic potential.
Credit: EconAlliance Marian Regional Medical Center. Credit: Dignity Health Downtown and corridor revitalization. Renewed investment can help transform Santa Maria’s commercial corridors and Downtown area into vibrant economic hubs. Revitalizing these areas through mixed-use development, infill housing, and coworking-office space supports local businesses and creates lively destinations for residents and visitors.
Tourism and visitor economy. Santa Maria is uniquely positioned to grow its tourism sector by celebrating its regional identity and natural surroundings. The area’s renowned barbecue, arts and cultural events, and proximity to destinations like the Santa Maria Valley Wine Country and Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes offer a foundation for expanding tourism. Partnerships between the City, local businesses, and tourism organizations can promote events, improve visitor-serving infrastructure, and amplify agricultural tourism.
Economic Development Element | 8
Regional collaboration. The City participates in several collaborative economic efforts that offer important opportunities to support business development, workforce alignment, and regional competitiveness.
Continued coordination with Vandenberg Space Force Base, the Santa Maria Airport District, and educational institutions can advance the growth of target sectors.
Gateway Mixed-Use Project located on the northwest corner of Main Street and Broadway. This building was constructed in 2024 and is an example of recent revitalization efforts in the Downtown area.
Economic Development Element | 9
Economic Development Policies
The Economic Development Policies address the key issues and opportunities identified above and establish a comprehensive roadmap for expanding economic and educational opportunities, strengthening local industry, and bolstering partnerships in the greater Santa Maria area.
The Policy Framework section outlines Economic Development goals, policies, and implementation actions.
A goal describes the community’s desired future. A policy is a specific statement of intent that guides decision-making. An action is an activity, procedure, program, or project that carries out a policy.
Policy Summary
The goals, policies, and implementation actions of the Economic Development Element foster a dynamic and resilient local economy by advancing educational and workforce opportunities, supporting existing businesses, and attracting new investment. The Framework is organized under four goal areas.
The first goal area aligns workforce development and educational opportunities with target industries through local partnerships, post-secondary program expansion, and career-readiness initiatives (Goal ECON-1). Through coordination with higher education institutions and regional programs, the aim is to ensure that residents are equipped with the skills needed for technically advanced jobs.
The second goal area fosters a supportive environment for business retention, expansion, and attraction by streamlining regulations, investing in infrastructure, and creating opportunities for infill and mixed-use development in key areas, especially Downtown (Goal ECON-2). Infrastructure investments and land use strategies are designed to support a diverse economy while maintaining affordability for both residents and employers.
Recognizing that economic success depends on collaboration, the third goal area focuses on publicprivate partnerships and regional cooperation to support innovation and entrepreneurship (Goal ECON-3).
The fourth goal area advances a targeted approach to tourism, placemaking, and branding that leverages Santa Maria’s unique cultural identity, agricultural roots, and natural attractions to position the city as a vibrant destination for visitors and businesses (Goal ECON-4).
Economic Development Element | 10
Policy Framework
Goal ECON-1: High-quality educational and economic opportunities. Santa Maria enjoys a growing economy that provides high-quality educational and expanded workforce opportunities for all residents.1
Policy ECON-1.1: Workforce development. Continue to support local workforce development programs (e.g., Build Your Workforce Program) and career services (e.g., America’s Job Center of California) to connect businesses and individuals with funding, job training, and work experience, ensuring that residents are prepared for high-quality jobs.
Policy ECON-1.2: Coordinate support for job training. Coordinate with local higher education institutions and other partners in the regional workforce system to support job training and workforce development programs.
Action ECON-1.2.1: Lead or partner to prepare a local economic development strategic plan (EDSP). An EDSP would identify key target industries, detailed strategies, and an action matrix outlining roles and responsibilities, potential partnerships, funding sources, and near-term implementation timeframes (typically over a five-year period). The EDSP should align with and support existing regional plans.
Policy ECON-1.3: Post-secondary program expansion. Encourage expanding post-secondary education and training programs that support the workforce needs of Santa Maria's target industries, including expanded offerings through Allan Hancock College.
Policy ECON-1.4: Local job connections. Support local events and programs that connect job seekers with high-growth and target industries.
Goal ECON-2: Business growth support. Santa Maria supports the growth and prosperity of existing businesses and attracts new business and investment. 2 Policy ECON-2.1: Business-friendly regulation. Maintain a regulatory environment that is business-friendly and appropriately aligned with attracting and/or supporting target industries.
Action ECON-2.1.1: Regularly review and update City permit procedures and fee schedules to improve efficiency and enhance clarity, thereby streamlining the permitting process. Identify opportunities to engage stakeholders in the review and recommendation process. 1 Please see the Public Facilities and Services Element for policies focused on collaboration with educational institutions. 2 Please see the Land Use Element for policies and actions related to downtown, infill, housing stock, corridors, and annexation.
Economic Development Element | 11
Action ECON-2.1.2: Evaluate establishing regulatory or other incentives for target businesses that may provide significant household supportive employment, reinvestment in desired areas, and/or revenues to the City (e.g., retail, health care, aerospace, precision manufacturing, education, agricultural technology, clean technology, and renewable energy, etc.).
Policy ECON-2.2: Downtown and corridors vitality. Strengthen the vitality and development of Downtown, as well as mixed-use and commercial corridors and centers throughout Santa Maria, by allowing a range of uses, amenities, and spaces to accommodate retail, housing, coworking spaces, and offices.
Policy ECON-2.3: Infill development. Prioritize infill development opportunities to revitalize Downtown and bolster the unique identities of other neighborhoods throughout Santa Maria.
Policy ECON-2.4: Diverse housing products. Encourage the development of a full spectrum of housing products at all affordability levels to ensure a diverse and talented workforce can remain and grow locally.
Policy ECON-2.5: Sustainable infrastructure investment. Invest in resilient and sustainable infrastructure systems that serve the existing and future businesses and residents in Santa Maria.
Policy ECON-2.6: Business assistance efforts. Support efforts and organizations that assist with business planning and modernization assistance (e.g., scaling, technology adoption, site selection and development, continuity planning, etc.), especially support for marginalized entrepreneurs.
Policy ECON-2.7: Santa Maria Airport Business Park development and partnership. Support and promote the development of the Santa Maria Public Airport by working closely with the Airport District on updating the Airport Business Park Specific Plan, with a renewed focus on attracting light industrial, high-tech, and other target businesses.
Action ECON-2.7.1: Support the Airport District in the implementation of a targeted plan to attract and grow commercial air service, providing opportunities for local businesses and residents to initiate and complete travel locally.
Policy ECON-2.8: Annexation lands. Support efforts for the annexation of land into the city to promote business expansion and residential growth. Leverage annexation as a tool to accommodate economic development, enhance infrastructure, and create opportunities for sustainable urban growth.
Policy ECON-2.9: Local strategic planning. Plan for and participate in local strategic economic development efforts.
Economic Development Element | 12
Goal ECON-3: Partnership-driven economic development. Economic development goals are advanced through collaboration and partnerships.
Policy ECON-3.1: Public-private partnerships. Develop public-private partnerships with highgrowth and target industry partners to support existing businesses, educational and workforce training opportunities, and to expand into emerging industries.
Action ECON-3.1.1: Participate in regularly convening local leaders in the private sector, philanthropic organizations, and higher education institutions to ensure there is support for the development of new industries in the city and region.
Action ECON-3.1.2: Coordinate with partners to identify companies in target industries and engage target industry representatives to identify actions the City could take to support them in establishing or expanding their presence.
Policy ECON-3.2: Startup partnerships. Explore partnerships with higher education institutions and organizations to support the creation of incubators and business accelerator programs.
Policy ECON-3.3: Regional efforts. Actively participate in a coordinated, joint regional economic development program (with partners such as the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce, Regional Economic Action Coalition (REACH) Central Coast, EconAlliance, etc.).
Action ECON-3.3.1: Support strengthening of the regional workforce development system through partnerships aiming to align workforce training initiatives with industry needs, ensuring a well-prepared and competitive workforce.
Policy ECON-3.4: Aerospace and aviation regional collaboration. Develop strategic public-private partnerships with Vandenberg Space Force Base, the Santa Maria Airport District, private aerospace companies, and regional partners to advance economic development and to support educational and workforce initiatives in high-tech, aerospace, and defense industries.
Goal ECON-4: Strengthening tourism. Santa Maria is a unique destination that celebrates location, history, and community.
Policy ECON-4.1: Santa Maria as a destination. Support efforts to promote Santa Maria as a destination for tourism. Celebrate Santa Maria's unique, authentic identity, including attributes such as being the birthplace of Santa Maria-style barbeque as well as over 150 years of agricultural history. Leverage Santa Maria’s distinctive location as the epicenter of the Central Coast, with access to a wide range of experiences including natural amenities (e.g., the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes), aerospace launches (Vandenberg Space Force Base), revitalization of the Downtown, agricultural tourism, wineries, and farm-to-table restaurants.
Action ECON-4.1.1: Continue and expand the offering of community events and opportunities that enable community members, businesses, and visitors to engage with local businesses.
Economic Development Element | 13
Action ECON-4.1.2: Amplify Santa Maria's agricultural tourism industry through continued support of community events (e.g., farmers’ markets, barbeque festivals, vintners’ events, etc.) and partnerships.
Action ECON-4.1.3: Support public and private efforts to develop and/or enhance visitor-serving infrastructure in and around Santa Maria to help attract visitors, such as relocation of the fairgrounds, expansion/establishment of the performing arts and/or conference center, utilization of sports facilities for tournaments, and similar initiatives.
Policy ECON-4.2: High-quality amenities. Encourage the development of quality lodging, restaurants, and meeting facilities to meet the needs of businesses, residents, and their guests, and to bring visitors to the community.
Action ECON-4.2.1: Amend the Zoning Code to ensure that lodging and similar uses that serve shortterm visitors (e.g., hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts) are appropriately allowed.
Policy ECON-4.3: Placemaking. Support a variety of revitalization and improvement programs focused on placemaking and beautification, such as façade improvements, public gathering places, public art, enhanced streetscapes and redesign of streets into pedestrian-friendly environments, and community events.3
Action ECON-4.3.1: Continue to pursue and secure grants and other funding to develop, improve, and invest in cultural amenities and public spaces.
Action ECON-4.3.2: Continue to implement and update, as needed, the City's Public Art Master Plan, Recreation and Parks Plan, Urban Forest Management Plan, and similar investment programs designed to enhance the attractiveness of Santa Maria as a place to live, work, play, and visit.
Policy ECON-4.4: Tourism-economic partnerships. Support and enhance the synergy between tourism promotion and economic development.
3 Please see the Land Use and Health and Environmental Justice Elements for additional policies and actions focused on public and pedestrian-friendly community spaces.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1
SCH# 2025020584
prepared by
City of Santa Maria
City of Santa Maria Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, California 93458
Contact: Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
February 2026
Attachment E
Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Final EIR Contents ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval .............................................................. 1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 2-1 3 Recirculation Not Warranted ...................................................................................................... 3-1 Appendices
Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
1.1 Final EIR Contents
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Santa Maria (City) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2045 General Plan Update (hereafter also referred to as “project”).
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the City of Santa Maria, as the lead agency, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This document together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for the project. This Final EIR includes individual responses to each letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.
The City has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final EIR also includes minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR suggested by certain comments. The Final EIR includes the following contents:
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Section 3: Recirculation Not Warranted
Revised Final EIR Chapters
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process
Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.
The City of Santa Maria filed a notice of completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin a minimum of a 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on August 14,2025, and ended on September 28, 2025. The Draft EIR was made available on the City’s website.1 In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for review at the City’s offices at 110 South Pine Street, Suite 101, City of Santa Maria, CA 93458. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was published on August 14, 2025. As a result of these notification efforts, the City received nine written comments on the content of the Draft EIR.
Section 2, “Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
1 Draft EIR for the project is available here: https://www.imaginesantamaria.com/resources 1 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-2
1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before adopting the project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.
Upon certification of an EIR, the lead agency makes a decision on the project analyzed in the EIR. A lead agency may: (a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).
In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Pursuant to PRC Section 21061.1, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
While the information in the EIR does not constrain the City’s ultimate decision under its land use authority, the City must respond to each significant effect and mitigation measure identified in the EIR as required by CEQA by making findings supporting its decision. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).
When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]).
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the 2045 General Plan Update.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on August 29, 2025 and ended on September 28, 2025. The City of Santa Maria received nine comment letters on the Draft EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
1 John Roberts 2-2
2 John Roberts 2-5
3 John Roberts 2-8
4 Emily Waddington, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 2-14 5 Lisa Plowman, Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department 2-19 6 Laurie Tamura, Urban Planning Concepts, Inc 2-29
7 Ken Hough and Jeanne Sparks, Santa Barbara County Action Network 2-163 8 Kelley M. Taber, Somach Simmons & Dunn 2-168
9 Chris Bjornstad, Caltrans District 5 2-183
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number.
The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1).
2-1
2 (805) 925 -0951 Ext. 2444
From: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:04 PM
To: Dana Eady <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft EIR Feedback
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.*** Hi Dana,
Thank you for the Zoom meeting today for the Draft General Plan & EIR.
I noticed a couple possible discrepancies in the DEIR that may need to be corrected:
1. To not create a “county island”, there are two missing APNs (128-094-047 & 128-094-043) from the list for annexation in DEIR Section 2.6.3 pg. 2-9 and not highlighted in the map figure 2-5 pg. 2- 12, which are both west and south of the city landfill and contiguously east of the included proposed parcel APN 128-094-012.
(See Detail E on county assessor map)
https://sbcassessor.com/assessor/maps_pdfs/128094.pdf
LETTER 1
1.1 2-2
3 2. On DEIR pg 4.1-2 under Chapter heading “LAFCO and Farmland”, the reference to “Section 1.5” should be changed to “Section 1.3”.
Thank you,
John Roberts
Privacy Notice:
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, print, or forward this email or any attachments.
Immediately delete this email and all attachments.
If you are the intended recipient - enjoy yourself.
This was most likely written by an A.I. and edited by me!
1.2 2-3
I
I
\
\ D£TAIL £
Seate 1 "c:::.Joo •
\
\
"-
c.
064
J ©
81.07 Ac.
e Detail "H •
111 2006- 97745
®
162.51::1: Ac.
1.11 2006- 97750
..,, ,, ~ \l~•~
"'IP
4 @
107.00:t Ac.
mt 2009_
(25 .t 65) ':i> lW
s
~-
~ i I U~1~.,~ ~ l',,\
f
111 2006-97754
25 I
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 1
COMMENTER: John Roberts, Community Member
DATE: August 19, 2025
Response 1.1
The commenter states that APNs 128-094-047 and 128-094-043 are missing from the annexation list in Section 2.6.3 and from Figure 2-5, which could create a county island.
The City is including APN 128-094-047 in the annexation area. Final EIR figures and language have been updated as necessary to reflect this change. The addition of APN 128-094-047 into the annexation area does not change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. APN 128-094-047 is a small area, 5.38 acres, compared to the overall annexation area, 985 acres, and has existing conditions similar to adjacent parcels, so its inclusion does not alter the scope or findings of the Draft EIR. APN 128-043 is already included in the city limits, and is therefore not a part of the annexation area but does not create a “county island” as it is not within county jurisdiction.
Response 1.2
The commenter states that on page 4.1-2 under the heading “LAFCO and Farmland” the reference to Section 1.5 should be corrected to Section 1.3.
The Final EIR has been revised to reflect the correct section reference. This correction does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.
2-4
2 *** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.*** Hi Dana,
I just discovered a third parcel (APN 128-094-045) that should be included for SOI/Annexation. It is also owned by the DeBernardi family, not the city according to https://www.acrevalue.com/.
Thank you,
John
From: Dana Eady <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:09 PM
To: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Draft EIR Feedback
Hi John,
Thank you for this feedback. I will relay this information to the rest of the team here and we will look into it.
Thank you for coming to the meeting today as well.
Have a good day,
Dana
Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Maria
110 South Pine Street Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
(805) 925 -0951 Ext. 2444
From: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:04 PM
To: Dana Eady <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft EIR Feedback
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.*** Hi Dana,
Thank you for the Zoom meeting today for the Draft General Plan & EIR.
I noticed a couple possible discrepancies in the DEIR that may need to be corrected:
1. To not create a “county island”, there are two missing APNs (128-094-047 & 128-094-043) from the list for annexation in DEIR Section 2.6.3 pg. 2-9 and not highlighted in the map figure 2-5 pg. 2- 12, which are both west and south of the city landfill and contiguously east of the included proposed parcel APN 128-094-012.
(See Detail E on county assessor map)
https://sbcassessor.com/assessor/maps_pdfs/128094.pdf
LETTER 2
2-5
nn
~
3 2. On DEIR pg 4.1-2 under Chapter heading “LAFCO and Farmland”, the reference to “Section 1.5” should be changed to “Section 1.3”.
Thank you,
John Roberts
Privacy Notice:
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, print, or forward this email or any attachments.
Immediately delete this email and all attachments.
If you are the intended recipient - enjoy yourself.
This was most likely written by an A.I. and edited by me! 2-6
I
I
\
-·· " -- ·~ cHO Santo
I.JO
~ 141
05. :,;,
------,:'9
/
'\.
\ DETAIL £
Scafe , ":;Joo· \
\
'\.
\
\
\
\
I
064
162.51.:t: Ac.
Iii/ 20o6- 97750
Iii/ 2006-977.
@
107.00.:t: Ac.
,t ~
~o
lill 2t.t1s-9
I~
• • .,....c..,,.~..,. .,.,. .,_
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 2
COMMENTER: John Roberts, Community Member
DATE: August 19, 2025
Response
This comment is in addition to the commenter’s previous email (identified herein as Letter 1). The commentor identifies an additional parcel, APN 128-094-045, that the commenter states should be included in the proposed SOI/annexation area and states it is owned by the DeBernardi family, not the City.
APN 128-094-045 is already included in the city limits, and is therefore not a part of the annexation area. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-7
2 I am updating my previous email with more specifics that may explain the Some of the “missing” APNs and other possible updates to the DEIR regarding a City parcel.
Thank you!
There seems to be three missing DeBernardi APNs 128-094-047, 128-094-043, 128-094-045, AND a possible City APN 128-094-041 from the list for annexation in DEIR Section 2.6.3 pg. 2-9 and not highlighted in the map figure 2-5 pg. 2-12, which are all west and south of the city landfill and east of the included proposed parcel APN 128-094-012, except the City parcel, which is north of 128-094-042. (See Detail E on County Assessor Map)
https://sbcassessor.com/assessor/maps_pdfs/128094.pdf
The City APN 128-094-041 was created from DeBernardi APN 128-094-042 and “swapped” with the City’s APN 128-094-045, now owned by the DeBernardi family.
The DeBernardi’s are in the process of doing a title search and possible chain of ownership for APN 128- 094-043. This parcel may be resolved after the title search and may discover that the parcel number has been abandoned and the land has been absorbed by one or more the nearby parcels. The last tax year the DeBernardi’s were required to pay taxes for this parcel was 2008-2009.
LETTER 3
3.1 3.2
2-8
I
I
\
1.JO
6)
\ 0£TAIL £
Scote 1 "=Joo' \
\
"
141
~ ~
-, ,;,s
........ " \l!JJi· " \
\
\
\
I
I
c.
V,I( 2006- 91746
©
162.SJ:t, Ac.
~ 2006- 97750
1'11' 2006- 977;
4 @
107.00:1: Ac.
RU S/97
06 (}(Jg7W
'5 ct 65) "'
lo
~~
~ ' ' uo.o-,£',J., ... ~ f.#,1 1',\
~ 2006-91754
2$
3 (Below is the relevant zoomed-in Proposed 2045 General Plan Annexation Area) City APN 128-094-041 seems to be in the County, while DeBernardi APNs 128-094-043, & 128-094-045 seem to be within the SOI/City limits.
The DeBernardi family are in the process of doing a title search and possible chain of ownership for APN 128-094-043. This may be resolved as an abandoned parcel number that has been absorbed by one of the DeBernardi parcels as they have not needed to pay property taxes on that parcel number since the 2008-2009 tax timeline.
3.2 2-9
v"
~ 17).
~o~ I
rdi APN 12~ 94-0471
- ;:,t:~ ~
.., ST
....._
~ DeBernar i APN 12 -094-045
..-=-~
~, .. ;p~
~
4 Thanks again Dana!
John Roberts
Privacy Notice:
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, print, or forward this email or any attachments.
Immediately delete this email and all attachments.
If you are the intended recipient - enjoy yourself.
This was most likely written by an A.I. and edited by me! From: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 7:32 PM
To: 'Dana Eady' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Draft EIR Feedback
Hi Dana,
I just discovered a third parcel (APN 128-094-045) that should be included for SOI/Annexation. It is also owned by the DeBernardi family, not the city according to https://www.acrevalue.com/.
Thank you,
John
2-10
5 From: Dana Eady <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:09 PM
To: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Draft EIR Feedback
Hi John,
Thank you for this feedback. I will relay this information to the rest of the team here and we will look into it.
Thank you for coming to the meeting today as well.
Have a good day,
Dana
Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Maria
110 South Pine Street Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
(805) 925 -0951 Ext. 2444
From: John Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:04 PM
To: Dana Eady <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft EIR Feedback
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.*** Hi Dana,
Thank you for the Zoom meeting today for the Draft General Plan & EIR.
I noticed a couple possible discrepancies in the DEIR that may need to be corrected:
1. To not create a “county island”, there are two missing APNs (128-094-047 & 128-094-043) from the list for annexation in DEIR Section 2.6.3 pg. 2-9 and not highlighted in the map figure 2-5 pg. 2- 12, which are both west and south of the city landfill and contiguously east of the included proposed parcel APN 128-094-012.
(See Detail E on county assessor map)
https://sbcassessor.com/assessor/maps_pdfs/128094.pdf
2-11
nn
~
6 2. On DEIR pg 4.1-2 under Chapter heading “LAFCO and Farmland”, the reference to “Section 1.5” should be changed to “Section 1.3”.
Thank you,
John Roberts
Privacy Notice:
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, print, or forward this email or any attachments.
Immediately delete this email and all attachments.
If you are the intended recipient - enjoy yourself.
This was most likely written by an A.I. and edited by me! 2-12
I
I
\
-·· " -- ·~ cHO Santo
I.JO
~ 141
05. :,;,
------,:'9
/
'\.
\ DETAIL £
Scafe , ":;Joo· \
\
'\.
\
\
\
\
I
064
162.51.:t: Ac.
Iii/ 20o6- 97750
Iii/ 2006-977.
@
107.00.:t: Ac.
,t ~
~o
lill 2t.t1s-9
I~
• • .,....c..,,.~..,. .,.,. .,_
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 3
COMMENTER: John Roberts, Community Member
DATE: December 5, 2016
Response 3.1
The commentor states this email is an update to their previous email, this one includes more details and specifics to explain their concerns, including the previously mentioned “missing” APNs. The commenter states that four parcels (APNs 128-094-047, 128-094-043, 128-094-045, and 128-094- 041) are missing from the annexation list in Section 2.6.3 and from Figure 2-5. These parcels are located west and south of the city landfill and east of APN 128-094-012, except APN 128-094-041, which is north of APN 128-094-042.
Refer to Response 1.1 and the Response 2.1 for a discussion of APNs 128-094-047, 128-094-043, and 128-094-045.
The City is including APN 128-094-041 in the annexation area. Final EIR figures and language have been updated as necessary to reflect this change. This parcel is a small area, 2.16 acres, compared to the overall annexation area, 985 acres, and has existing conditions similar to adjacent parcels, so its inclusion does not alter the scope or findings of the EIR.
Response 3.2
The commenter provides clarification regarding parcel ownership and history, noting that APN 128- 094-041 was created from APN 128-094-042 and swapped with APN 128-094-045, which is now owned by the DeBernardi family. The commenter also states that a title search is underway for APN 128-094-043, which may reveal the parcel number has been abandoned and absorbed into adjacent parcels, with the last tax payment recorded in 2008–2009.
This comment provides the City with additional information about the parcel ownership and history, but does not recommend revisions to the Draft EIR. Therefore, the additional information provided by the commenter does not change the environmental analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. 2-13
September 25, 2025
Dana Eady Sent Via Email: [email protected]
Community Development Department
City of Santa Maria
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Re: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update, SCH #2025020584 Dear Dana Eady:
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update, which will guide growth and development of the City through 2045. The update will help the City plan for important community issues such as community growth, housing, mobile and infrastructure needs, climate change, and environmental protection. The Plan would change some land use designations and amend two existing specific plans, the Entrada Specific Plan and the Area 9 Specific Plan. Additionally, three areas totaling 985 acres east of the city limits would be annexed and a new land use designation, Planned Annexation, would be established that allows for a mix of commercial, residential, industrial, and public land uses. The Plan provides the framework for development of up to 16,140 net new dwelling units and 1,504 net new acres of non-residential uses including 452 acres of mixed uses, seven acres of industrial/airport uses, 33 acres of public and open space, and 1,012 acres of specific plan and planned annexation areas, with a reduction in 462 acres of commercial uses.
1. Impact AQGHG-2 Classification After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation requires that a project with emissions that exceed air quality thresholds must “implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below thresholds,” yet the EIR classifies the impact as “significant and unavoidable.” Since this mitigation measure would reduce any significant impact to a less than significant level, the City should consider if an impact classification of “less than significant after mitigation” is more appropriate for this impact.
2. AQGHG-3 Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures: This measure requires off-road heavy-duty diesel engines used during construction to meet CARB-certified Tier 3 or higher emission standards or employ CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters. The District’s strongly encourages the City to revise and strengthen this measure to align with the District’s current recommendations for control of diesel exhaust and minimization of construction-related TAC exposure impacts. Namely we request the measure be revised to require the following:
a. Off-road diesel equipment 25 horsepower (hp) or greater shall be equipped with engines compliant with, or certified to meet or exceed, CARB’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards. Where available, off-road construction equipment should be zero4.1
4.2 LETTER 4
4.3 2-14
aped air pollution control district
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
Aeron Arlin Genet, Air Pollution Control Officer
\. (805) 979-8050 I Q 260 N. San Antonio Rd., Ste. A Santa Barbara, CA 93110 I {~~} ourair.org I "JI la @OurAirSBC District Comments on the Draft EIR for the Santa Maria General Plan Update September 25, 2025
emission. Alternative/renewable fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or propane should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible when zero-emission is not available. Commitments to Tier 4 and/or zero-emission equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts; successful contractors shall demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to ground-disturbing and construction activities. b. All portable generators shall be powered by a source other than diesel fuel or gasoline (i.e. battery, natural gas, propane etc.).
3. Action COS-5.2.3: This action on page 4.2-24 specifies “collaborate with SBCAPCD to monitor pesticide residues in the air and enforce pesticide use and storage regulations.” The District does not have regulatory authority over the use or storage of pesticides. We recommend that the General Plan and EIR discussion is updated to cite the appropriate regulatory authority.
4. CalEEMod Trip Rates: Appendix B CalEEMod Outputs shows that there are no trip rates entered for the modeled land uses, and only vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were modeled in CalEEmod to quantify the mobile emissions from the proposed land uses. This omission underestimates the project’s mobile emissions as the trip rates are used for the calculation of vehicle starting exhaust and evaporative emissions. To properly assess mobile emissions from the proposed land uses, the CalEEMod analysis should be updated to include trip rates of the proposed land uses.
Using default trip rates is acceptable, as project-specific trip rates are not known at this time.
We hope you find our comments useful. Please contact me at (805) 979-8334 or via email at [email protected] if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Emily Waddington,
Air Quality Specialist
Planning Division
cc: Planning Chron File
4.3 4.4
4.5 2-15
~M¼
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Emily Waddington, Air Quality Specialist with Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
DATE: September 25, 2025
Response 4.1
The commenter summarizes the scope and purpose of the General Plan Update.
This commenter’s summary does not provide new information about the Draft EIR analysis or recommend changes to the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
Response 4.2
The commenter suggests the City consider reclassifying Impact AQGHG-2 as less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2.
Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2 requires project-level air quality analysis and mitigation that would reduce criteria pollutant emissions but cannot ensure all future projects will be capable of feasibly reducing emissions below Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District’s (SBCAPCD) adopted thresholds of significance due to project-specific variability. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, the impact analysis concludes this impact would be significant and unavoidable for the 2045 General Plan Update. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 4.3
The commenter recommends edits to Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 (Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures) to align with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District’s current best practices.
Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 and the subsequent discussion of this impact’s significance after mitigation have been revised in the Final EIR to incorporate SBCAPCD’s requested language, as follows:
Mitigation Measures
AQGHG-3 Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures For individual discretionary and ministerial residential projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update that would develop three or more units; would involve demolition, mass grading, or excavation and trenching phases longer than two months; and would be located within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, the City shall enforce a project specific Condition of Approval requiring the following: off-road heavy-duty diesel engines to meet CARB-certified Tier 3 or higher emission standards or employ CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters to the extent that this equipment is commercially available. “Commercially available” shall be defined as the availability of required equipment in geographic proximity to the project site and within a reasonable timeframe relative to critical path construction timing. If Tier 3 or higher emission standard equipment or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available, documentation shall be provided by the project applicant to the City stating that Tier 3 2-16
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
equipment or higher emission standard or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available with supporting evidence from the contractor. If CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters are utilized, they shall be kept in working order and maintained in operable condition according to manufacturer’s specifications, as applicable. a. Off-road diesel equipment 25 horsepower (hp) or greater shall be equipped with engines compliance with, or certified to meet or exceed, the California Air Resources Board’s Tier 3 Final engine emissions standards. Where available, and as determined on a project-byproject basis, the use of Tier 4 or zero-emission equipment shall be utilized. Where feasible, off-road construction equipment should be either Tier 4 or zero-emission.
Alternative/renewable fuels such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or propane should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible when zero-emission is not available. Commitments to Tier 3, Tier 4 and/or zero-emission equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts; successful contractors shall demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to ground-disturbing and construction activities.
b. All portable generators shall be powered by a source other than diesel fuel or gasoline (i.e. battery, natural gas, propane etc.).
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 would reduce potential residual health risk impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of DPM and TACs.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 would require construction projects that may be a substantial source of health risk exposure to sensitive receptors to utilize Tier 3 equipment or higher emission standard or Level 3 diesel particulate filters to the maximum extent feasible align with the District’s current recommendations for control of diesel exhaust and minimization of construction-related TAC exposure impacts, which reduce potential construction-related TACs exposure impacts to a less than significant level.
This revision does not alter the significance conclusion for construction-related air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts.
Response 4.4
The commenter points out that Action COS-5.2.3, under the General Plan Update’s proposed Policy COS-5.2, Agricultural air pollutant emissions, incorrectly assigns pesticide use and storage enforcement authority to SBCAPCD, which does not have that authority, and recommends listing the correct regulatory agency instead.
The City has revised Action COS-5.2.3 in the 2045 General Plan Update to clarify that pesticide use and storage are regulated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. The discussion of Action COS-5.2.3 has been revised in the Final EIR for consistency with this revision in the 2045 General Plan Update. This revision does not change the environmental analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.
Response 4.5
The commenter recommends including trip rates in the CalEEMod analysis. 2-17
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
The VMT-based approach used in the Draft EIR is consistent with SB 743 and CEQA Section 15064.3 for program-level analysis. Regional mobile emissions are estimated using VMT. Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines and SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (2022a), project-specific trip data would be used for transportation analysis during future project-level environmental review. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-18
COUNTY EXECUTI VE OF FICE
Mona Miyasato, County Executive Officer
Tanja Heitman, Assistant County Executive Officer
Wade Horton, Assistant County Executive Officer
105 E. Anapamu Street, Suite 406, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-3400 Fax (805) 568-3414 [email protected] www.countyofsb.org/ceo
Follow us @CountyofSB
September 26, 2025
Attn: Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street, Room 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Email: [email protected]
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Dear Ms. Eady:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. At this time, the County submits comments from the Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office directly or Lisa Plowman, Planning and Development Director at (805) 568-2086.
Sincerely,
Clare Tobin
Legislative Analyst
cc: Lisa Plowman, Director, Planning and Development Department Zoë Carlson, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department Enclosures: Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department Letter, dated September 26, 2025
LETTER 5
5.1 2-19
Planning and Development
Lisa Plowman, Director
Jeff Wilson, Assistant Director
Elise Dale, Assistant Director
123 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2000 Fax (805) 568-2030 624 W. Foster Road, Santa Maria, CA 93455 (805) 934-6250 Fax (805) 934-6258 www.countyofsb.org; Follow us @CountyofSB
September 26, 2025
Attn: Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Email: [email protected]
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Dear Ms. Eady:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. The Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department (P&D) has reviewed the Draft EIR and requests that the City of Santa Maria (City) proceed with the environmentally superior alternative that achieves the City’s stated goals for the Project and maintains consistency with City and LAFCO policies and standards mentioned in P&D’s comment letter on the NOP, dated March 13, 2025 (attached), while avoiding unnecessary significant and avoidable environmental impacts and obviating the need to prematurely annex rural lands outside of the City limits.
The description for Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative in the Draft EIR is as follows:
6.3.1 Description
Under the Infill Only Alternative, the City of Santa Maria would adopt the 2045 General Plan Update, including all goals and policies. However, the Infill Only Alternative would exclude the annexation of areas located east of the current City limits and direct development to areas within existing urban or suburban areas as infill, redevelopment, or increased densities. For the purpose of this analysis, the Infill Only Alternative is assumed to result in a similar overall level of buildout and population growth compared to the 2045 General Plan Update, despite the exclusion of future development in the eastern annexation area.
5.1 5.2
2-20
one
COUNTY
DEIR for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Page 2
Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department
www.countyofsb.org
While this alternative would reduce the geographic footprint of development, it would result in increased development pressure on existing neighborhoods and infrastructure.
As a result, the Infill Only Alternative may not fulfill the primary objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update because it would not fully address evolving community health needs, state housing requirements, or opportunities for connected growth anticipated through 2045. However, as discussed in detail in Section 6.3.2, this alternative would avoid environmental impacts in the annexation area, such as conversion of agricultural land, fragmentation of open space, or potential effects on biological resources, while potentially exacerbating environmental impacts associated with the increased development density in existing neighborhoods.
The description states the Infill Only Alternative may not fully address evolving health needs, state housing requirements, or opportunities for connected growth; however, there does not appear to be an analysis that substantiates this conclusion. As currently described, it is unclear whether this alternative would provide for development of existing agricultural and other open lands within the City’s existing boundaries to meet state housing requirements, though the text seems to suggest that this alternative would preclude the conversion of any agricultural land. If necessary, this alternative could be strengthened to meet all stated objectives for the Project and maintain its status as the environmentally superior alternative if it included agricultural lands within City boundaries and its sphere of influence, in addition to the urban and suburban lands it currently identifies for development.
Section 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative, further demonstrates how the Infill Only Alternative meets the City’s objectives while reducing potential environmental impacts:
Unlike the Greater Annexation Alternative, the Infill Only Alternative would concentrate development in already developed areas of the city by increasing densities and redevelopment. As a result, the Infill Only Alternative would have reduced impacts on agricultural lands, as this alternative would not include the annexation area, thus removing the potential for development to convert agricultural lands outside of the City limits. The Infill Only Alternative would also result in reduced impacts to air quality and GHG emissions, as infill development would encourage the use of active transportation and transit uses due to the proximity of services to residential development. Additionally, compared to the Greater Annexation Alternative, the Infill Only Alternative would have reduced impacts on biological and cultural resources due to the concentration of development within previously disturbed areas that have low potential for biological resources and low potential to uncover archaeological resources. The Infill Only Alternative would have reduced per capita VMT, as development within the infill areas would reduce buildout potential to a wider area, which would reduce mobile emissions in comparison to the Greater Annexation Alternative. Due to the reduced buildout potential
5.2 5.3
2-21
DEIR for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Page 3
Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department
www.countyofsb.org
and reduced buildout area, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would also be reduced compared to the Greater Annexation Alternative.
Section 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative, also includes justification for not selecting the Infill Only Alternative; however, this justification does not appear to be substantiated and is discussed below:
Although the Infill Only Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative, this alternative would not fulfill the primary objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update, including the provision of housing quality and various housing choices or improving opportunities for connected growth.
The above statement is inaccurate as this alternative could fulfill the primary objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update including Housing Quality and Choice and Connected Growth. Both objectives are described below in italics:
Housing Quality and Choice. Develop a high-quality and diverse housing supply at all levels of affordability that preserves Santa Maria as a place where families can establish roots and today’s youth can afford to stay. Balance the growth of housing and the economy so that people can live and work in Santa Maria. As new housing types are introduced, (e.g., accessory dwelling units (ADUs), adapt parking, transportation, and other community features. Develop workforce housing solutions that provide safe, healthy, and comfortable homes for workers and their families.
According to the Draft EIR, the Infill Only Alternative would result in a similar overall level of buildout and population growth through infill development.
Therefore, the strategies discussed above for achieving housing quality and choice, including ADUs, can be achieved through infill development without annexation of rural agricultural lands.
Connected Growth. To accommodate projected population, housing, and jobs growth, focus on improvements to existing neighborhoods along with infill and vacant site development. Expand beyond current City limits when needed, weighing the short and long term environmental, economic, infrastructure, public service, and fiscal trade-offs. Establish strong cultural, design, and physical connections between newly developed areas and the rest of Santa Maria.
5.3 5.4
2-22
DEIR for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Page 4
Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department
www.countyofsb.org
It is unclear how the Infill Only Alternative does not meet this objective as it emphasizes improvements to existing neighborhoods and infill development. It also emphasizes expanding beyond City limits when needed.
The Draft EIR contains additional justification for not selecting the Infill Only Alternative in Section
6.5 as follows:
Further, the Infill Only Alternative would not enhance new and existing neighborhoods such that each neighborhood would be a Complete Neighborhood or provide innovative housing and may result in the City failing to meeting its RHNA obligations in accordance with State law as it would significantly reduce the affordable housing options and limit new housing to infill only and redevelopment.
As mentioned above, the Infill Only Alternative could be strengthened if it considered development of agricultural lands within the City boundary and sphere of influence in addition to the proposed urban and suburban lands to meet its RHNA obligations, along with the incorporation of higher density residential development (e.g., up to 40 units/acre in residential zones) in order to increase affordable housing options. This would allow it to meet the goal of providing Complete Neighborhoods and maintain its designation as the environmentally superior alternative.
A modified Infill Only Alternative that includes agricultural lands within the City boundaries and within Santa Maria’s sphere of influence would reduce substantial impacts to agricultural lands designated as important farmland. Table 4.1-1 Summary of Important Farmland in the Plan Area and Annexation Areas shows that of the 944 acres of land in the annexation areas, 803 are prime farmland, 7 acres are farmland of statewide importance, 134 acres are unique farmland and only 41 acres are not considered to be prime or unique farmland or farmland of local or statewide importance. This table also identifies 1,537 acres of grazing land within the City limits and sphere of influence, along with over 2,500 acres of prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, there is greater opportunity for Complete Neighborhood development on farmland within the City boundary or sphere than the area proposed for annexation. Further, the Infill Only Alternative would reduce impacts to agricultural resources to a less than significant level whereas impacts under the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. The City should focus any proposed development of agricultural lands on areas within the City limits prior to consideration of additional areas for annexation.
In summary, and as stated in the attached P&D comment letter, the County encourages the City to fully utilize existing areas within the City before considering annexing agricultural land in the
5.4 5.5
2-23
DEIR for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update Page 5 Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department
www.countyofsb.org
rural area, with an approach that includes increasing the density of residential land use designations and seeking redevelopment opportunities within the existing city limits or development of urban agricultural lands within the City at appropriate densities to meet its needs. We also continue to encourage the City to coordinate with the County regarding sound regional growth strategies.
Please contact Zoë Carlson, Planner, in the Long Range Planning Division, at (805) 568-3532, or at [email protected], if you have any questions.
Regards,
Lisa Plowman
Director, Planning and Development Department
Attachment:
1. Re: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Maria General Plan Update
G:\GROUP\COMP\Resp. Agency Review\RAR Projects by Agency\Cities & Counties\City of Santa Maria\Santa Maria GP Update\2025 Update\GP EIR NOP\PD Letter SM GP EIR NOP 3.12.25.docx
5.5 2-24
f
f
r
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Lisa Plowman, Director of the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department
DATE: September 26, 2025
Response 5.1
The commenter thanks the City for the opportunity to provide public comment and requests that the City proceed with the environmentally superior alternative (the Infill Only Alternative) which achieves the City’s stated goals for the project, and maintains consistency with City and LAFCO policies and standards mentioned in the commenter’s submitted comment letter on the NOP.
While the Infill Only Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in the Draft EIR, due to its reduced environmental impacts, the City selected the 2045 General Plan Update as the preferred alternative as it would best meet the full range of project objectives, including housing quality and choice, connected growth, and infrastructure planning. The 2045 General Plan Update would provide for both infill development and annexation areas, which would allow for a greater range of housing types and locations, support planned infrastructure improvements, and accommodate projected population and employment growth identified in the plan. In contrast, the Infill Only Alternative limits development to existing urban areas, which would reduce overall growth potential and associated infrastructure planning opportunities. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5.2
The commenter summarizes the description of the Infill Only Alternative in the Draft EIR and opines that the reasoning for not adopting this alternative needs to be substantiated further.
Chapter 6, Alternatives, Section 6.3, Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative, pages 6-6 through 6-9, of the Draft EIR explains that the Infill Only Alternative would not fully meet several of the 2045 General Plan Update’s primary objectives, particularly those related to housing quality and choice, connected growth, and the provision of complete neighborhoods. This alternative would limit development to existing urban areas, which would reduce overall growth potential and opportunities for new housing types compared to the proposed plan. It also constrains the ability to plan for future infrastructure improvements beyond current city limits and may increase development pressure on existing neighborhoods. While the Infill Only Alternative offers some environmental advantages, the Draft EIR concludes that these limitations prevent it from achieving the full range of objectives identified for the 2045 General Plan Update. The Infill Only Alternative may also limit the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations and reduce opportunities for innovative housing solutions. Additionally, increased development pressure on existing neighborhoods and infrastructure could exacerbate localized environmental impacts and constrain the City’s long-term growth strategy.
The commenter is correct that the description could be strengthened by clarifying whether agricultural lands within existing city limits could be developed under this alternative and how that might affect housing capacity. To address this, additional explanation has been added to Chapter 6, Alternatives, Section 6.3, Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative, page 6-7, to clarify that the Infill Only Alternative would rely on redevelopment and increased densities within existing urban areas and 2-25
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
locations already designated for urban development. The Infill Only Alternative would not convert agricultural lands within city limits because the land use designations and zonings of lands within city limits currently used for agricultural purposes have been planned for urban redevelopment in specific plans or earlier iterations of the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with the loss of agricultural resources were previously evaluated in the environmental review documentation for these long-range plans. For some properties within city limits that remain in crop production, this represents a transitional non-conforming use that is anticipated to be replaced with urban redevelopment during implementation of current specific plans and the General Plan.
As discussed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, environmental documents such as the Sphere of Influence Expansion Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90010930), the Area 9 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071018), the Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1994107909), and the Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015011029) have evaluated impacts to agricultural resources from the conversion of agricultural lands within the city. As a result, these lands have land use and zoning designations intended for urban redevelopment and would not be considered a conversion of existing agricultural uses.
The language within the analysis on pages 6.7 has been revised in the Final EIR to incorporate the following underlined language:
By accommodating a similar amount of development entirely within existing City limits, the Infill Only Alternative would avoid the annexation area’s agricultural lands and result in reduced impacts to farmland. While the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program still designates areas within the city as Important Farmland, the conversion of these areas and associated land use changes have been previously evaluated in earlier environmental documents which are listed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources. Under this alternative, future growth would rely on redevelopment and increased densities within existing urbanized areas and locations already designated for urban development rather than expansion into agricultural lands. The Infill Only Alternative would not convert agricultural lands within city limits because lands within city limits currently used for agricultural purposes have been previously designated for planned urban redevelopment in specific plans or earlier iterations of the General Plan. As discussed in Section
4.1, Agricultural Resources, environmental documents such as the Sphere of Influence Expansion Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90010930), the Area 9 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071018), the Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1994107909),and the Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015011029) have evaluated impacts to agricultural resources from the conversion of agricultural lands within the city. As a result, these lands have land use and zoning designations intended for urban redevelopment and would not be considered a conversion of existing agricultural uses. The exclusion of future development in the eastern annexation area would reduce impacts to agricultural resources in comparison to the 2045 General Plan Update. However, because this alternative limits development to infill sites, it would constrain opportunities for housing diversity and connected growth compared to the proposed plan. As the Infill Only Alternative would not result in the conversion of agricultural lands within City limits nor would it include the annexation area, this impact would be reduced to less than significant.
2-26
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5.3
The commenter summarizes text from the Draft EIR Alternatives Section and states the Infill Only Alternative would meet the City’s objectives and reduce environmental impacts.
As discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, Section 6.3, Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative, pages 6-6 through 6-9, of the Draft EIR, the Infill Only Alternative would concentrate development within existing city limits, thereby avoiding the conversion of agricultural lands in the eastern annexation area and reducing impacts on biological resources, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. These benefits led to its identification as the Environmentally Superior Alternative under CEQA. Please also refer to Response 5.2 above for a discussion on why the Infill Only Alternative was not chosen as the preferred alternative. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5.4
The commenter opines that the justification for not selecting the Infill Only Alternative was not substantiated in Section 6.5 of the Draft EIR. The commenter further opines that the Infill Only Alternative could fulfill the objectives for Housing Quality and Choice and Connected Growth of the 2045 General Plan.
Please refer to Reponses 5.1-5.3 above for an explanation of the City’s decision to move forward with the proposed project as opposed to the Infill Only Alternative. While the Draft EIR acknowledges that the Infill Only Alternative would implement the General Plan’s goals and policies, the determination that it would not fully meet the plan’s objectives reflects a broader planning consideration: that infill alone may not provide sufficient geographic flexibility or capacity to meet long-term housing and infrastructure needs. The commenter’s preference for the Infill Only Alternative will be passed on to decision makers for their consideration.
Response 5.5
The commenter provides suggestions which they believe would strengthen the Infill Only Alternative and fulfill the goals of the Draft General Plan. The commenter also recommends allowing development of agricultural lands within the city limits and sphere of influence, combined with higher-density residential zoning (up to 40 units per acre). The commenter further encourages prioritizing redevelopment and increased density within existing city boundaries before annexing rural agricultural land and recommends continued coordination with the County on regional growth strategies.
As discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, Section 6.3, Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative, pages 6-6 through 6-9, and in Responses 5.1-5.4 above, the Draft EIR concludes that the Infill Only Alternative may constrain the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations and provide innovative housing types due to its reliance solely on infill and redevelopment. However, as described in the Alternatives Technical Memoranda (see the City General Plan website:
https://www.imaginesantamaria.com/_files/ugd/e3bef4_378ddb76d4224730a46da6a98aac8165.p df), the Infill Only Alternative already assumes several land use changes to support new housing opportunities within city limits and its sphere of influence, including revisions to the Area 9 Specific Plan and increased densities (up to 35 du/ac) in High Density Residential zones, as well as new mixed-use designations along Main Street and Broadway corridors that would facilitate additional infill development.
2-27
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
The preferred land use alternative (as discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description) would facilitate infill development particularly along the Main Street and Broadway corridors similar to the Infill Only Alternative. The preferred land use alternative would also increase densities for residential development, and the new Corridor Mixed Use designation would allow for increased allowable densities within the city that would account for approximately 60 percent of new residential units.
The annexation area within the preferred land use alternative would account for the remaining 40 percent of new residential units.
Changes within the Infill Only Alternative are intended to support a diverse housing supply and promote Complete Neighborhoods within existing City limits. However, the analysis found that even with these enhancements, the City would not fully address evolving community health needs, meet state housing requirements, or provide opportunities for connected growth anticipated through 2045. Therefore, annexation of adjacent rural agricultural land was determined to be the only feasible solution to meet long-term housing needs and ensure compliance with state housing requirements.
The commenter’s suggestion to include agricultural lands within the city boundary and sphere of influence is acknowledged; however, this suggestion does not account for the City’s existing land use plans and constraints. Many agricultural parcels within the city limits are designated as Primary Agricultural Open Space (AOS-1) or Secondary Agricultural Open Space (AOS-2), which are intended to preserve land for current and future agricultural production. These designations reflect long-term planning goals and community values, and conversion of these lands would be in direct conflict with the City’s agricultural identity objective.
While increasing density and utilizing urban agricultural lands aligns with infill principles, the Draft EIR and supporting technical documents demonstrate that these options have already been explored and found to be insufficient. Ultimately, annexation of adjacent rural agricultural land was determined to be the preferred alternative by the City as it includes a feasible way to meet the City’s housing needs through 2045 while balancing land use priorities. 2-28
September 27, 2025
Dana Eddy, Planner Manager
Community Development Department
110 S. Pine Street
Santa Maria, Ca 93454
RE: Comments on Draft EIR for General Plan Update
Dear Dana
Please find my comments on the Draft EIR for the General Plan Update attached. I hope that these comments and the information provided will help provide more detail and context to the future development of the City of Santa Maria.
Both the Draft General Plan Elements and the Draft EIR were released at the same time for a 45-day public review. This was a very heavy lift for the community to provide detailed comments in such a short period of time.
After review of both documents there are some core issues that need to be addressed before the General Plan is approved by the City Council and forwarded to LAFCO for the Sphere of Influence adjustment and future annexations.
1. Annexation Area: There is no information on how the annexation area will be developed with over 8,000 units and all the related development items such as commercial uses, schools, parks, roads, infrastructure. Without this information now it will be many years before these areas will be available for annexation and development.
2. Future School Sites: There is no information about how and where the 8 elementary schools, 3 new junior highs, and 2 new high schools are going to be located for the 16,140 new units. The current schools are already impacted and cannot absorb more students. Half of these schools will be in the infill area of the city and there is no land available for these schools!!! The city needs to set aside over 200 acres for future schools for the infill and the annexation areas or each of the existing school sites will need to have two and three story campus buildings. This is a flaw in the plan.
3. Future Parks: The current city policy is to have 5 acres per 1,000 residents. If the city is built out to 165,000 people by 2045 the city would need to have 825 acres of parkland to be consistent with this policy. That means all the annexation area will need to be park land with no development or the city needs to annex a whole lot more land in this process. Currently the city indicates that they have about 240 acres of parkland, but it is not clear if this includes the 20-acre sports field project. Ther is no new parkland identified for the infill of the city so where are the new parks to be located.
No where in these two documents does the city include discussion on the parks and trails at Los Flores which is more than 300 acres.??? There is also no information on how much
6.1 6.2
6.3 6.4
LETTER 6
2-29
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
100’s of acres of new parks will cost the city both in the acquisition, development or longterm maintenance of many new parks over the next 25 years. The park policy needs to be substantially reduced to be realistic for the future.
4. Water and Wastewater Plans There is no information about the many upgrades needed for water and sewer trucklines throughout the city. There is no information as to how the annexation area is going to be served for wastewater treatment. Is there going to be a new plant on that side of the city or how will the effluent be carried through what major trucklines across the city to the existing plant and how much expansion to the plant will need to be made to increase the plant by 50% and how much it will cost. This information needs to be in the General Plan and the Draft EIR to validate that there is a feasible plan for the growth of the city.
5. Traffic Impact: The traffic section of the EIR has no information on the 50% increase of traffic in the city of Santa Maria and the impacts to roadways and intersections. Some road sections will have 3 to 5 times as much traffic as currently experienced. Ironically the Noise section of the draft EIR has more information about traffic impacts than the traffic section. Table 4.6-8 reveals major impacts throughout the city. The bottom line is that the city either needs to change the Policy to accept LOS F for most roadways or the city needs to identify all the roadways and intersections that will need to be expanded and improved to maintain a LOS D. How much will these road improvements cost the city and the developers. Also, there is a map on the existing Circulation system within the city but there is no map on the new Circulation System.
6. Los Flores Park and Landfill There is no map or discussion in any of these documents on the 1,500 acres the city owns and what the plans are for this property. The plans were to have a 300-acre landfill for the future of the city of Santa Maria but that is not discussed in the Public facilities element or the EIR. On page 4.8-5 of the EIR the reference is that the city will be hauling trash to the Cold Canyon Landfill by 2034. WHY? Also, there is no discussion in either document on the parks and trails and other amenities at Los Flores that the city has spent park and general fund money on. What are the plans for the future of this park and the rest of the land at Los Flores?
7. Future environmental review Throughout the EIR there are references to future projects needing additional environmental review. This is incorrect. Most of the housing projects that are part of this infill area will not need future environmental review, and it needs to be clear in each chapter that most housing projects are exempt. They will not need VMT studies, bio studies, noise studies, cultural resource studies. They may need infrastructure studies if the city does not do it.
Unfortunately, the annexation areas will need to have second level EIR’s because the development plans for these areas were not included in this General plan update. So more time and money will be spent in the next five years to plan for these areas.
6.4 6.5
6.6 6.7
6.8 2-30
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on the attached comments.
Sincerely
Laurie Tamura, AICP
Principle Planner
Urban Planning Concepts, Inc
2-31
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
ES-1 4 The first sentence should have the elements listed in the order of state law. Throughout this document the reference should be in the order of state law. Should include Housing element in this list. Also the optional elements needed to be listed last
ES-1 6 Agricultural Identity needs to be revised to state:
“Balance the needs of the existing city and the annexation areas while respecting the agricultural operations outside of the city sphere of Influence.”
ES-2 7 Connected Growth needs to be revised to state:
To accommodate projected population, housing and job growth focus on improvements Including new schools, parks, and infrastructure to existing neighborhoods along with infill on vacant sites. At the same time balance the growth needed by annexing planned areas that will also include schools, parks, businesses and jobs.
ES-3 4 Alternatives:
There is no Project Description listed here first. What is this EIR analyzing ?? Need to provide details on the growth hybrid plan of 8,000 units in the city and 8,000 units in the annexation area. also need to include details on how many schools are needed, how many parks, water, sewer, roads. Jobs etc.
6.9 6.11
6.10 2-32
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Each of the three alternatives need the same details listed here. How many units etc….
The determination of alternative 2 as the superior alternative is in error as there is no plan for anything but housing what about schools, parks, jobs, etc. and it does not meet the objectives for the future of the city.
ES-3 5 The one controversy has been expansion of Santa Maria to included prime agricultural land in the annexations. Please revise this statement.
ES-5-
26 There will be many comments on MM’s in this document that will need to be revised in this table
Introduction
1.1 1 Throughout this EIR and the General Plan update the date should be changed from 2045 to 2050. This will give the city a 25-year timeline before the GP needs to be updated again and it will have the d city go through three housing cycles.
1-1 2 This paragraph needs a much longer review of the history of the city over the last 30 years since the Sphere of Influence and annexation project was approved by the City of Santa Maria. The 1993 plan studies the potential of 3,000 acres and resulted in the annexation of 2,000 acres with 10,000 units, schools, parks, jobs/housing balance.
This history needs to be very detailed as this new GP update is following in the footsteps of the original annexation plan. Should include a map.
This paragraph should be split in two after the word WRITTEN. 1-1 4 This should be a 2025 plan.
The second sentence said that this is a blueprint for the city but there are no plans this is only a policy document and the blueprints will have to be done later project by project. Please rewrite this sentence and make it clear that the bullets listed here are not in this General Plan or EIR.
1-1 Whole
page
There is no mention in the Introduction on the purpose of this EIR.
This EIR is to study the Hybrid plan of 8,000 new infill units with schools, parks, jobs upgraded infrastructure and 8,000 new units in the annexation area with new schools, parks, jobs and infrastructure
6.11 6.12
6.13 6.14
6.15 6.16
6.17 2-33
t---------------~------I
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
to serve this new area. must include these numbers in every session of this EIR as this is what the GP with result in fo the city. 1-2 2 This should have been a full EIR on the infill and annexation for the future of the city. Doing a Programmatic EIR just means that almost all future projects will need to do their own ND or Full EIR. Many more documents will need to be done project by project in the future. 2-1 2 Revise paragraph per correct listing of elements and optional elements and also note that this GP should be 2050.
2-1 footnote This footnote should be revised to indicate that any development within SOI can and will be processed by the city of Santa Maria for annexation to the city. The county would be a responsible agency regarding the annexation application. For example Richards Ranch was processed by the city.
2-2 Fig 2-1 This map needs to include the 1,500 acre Los flores property that the city owns and operates to the southwest of the Orcutt area. this site will eventually have a new 300 acre landfill.
2-4 1 The linear portion of Santa maria is located on the east side not west side of U.S.101. Please correct.
The internal farm The city owned service road go east to the City owned property where the water storage tanks are located along with communication towers and other city equipment.
The city also owns and operates 1,500 acres of land known as Los Flores. This land includes parks and trails and, in the future, will be the new city landfill on about 300 acres. Add this information to this paragraph.
The last sentence should be moved to the next paragraph 2-4 2 Regional transit is provided also by SMOOTH and other medical and senior carriers. This should be noted throughout this EIR.
Regional rail should also include the Santa Maria Valley Railroad into the city of Santa Maria.
Make these corrections.
2-4 3 Revised this paragraph
The City of Sant Maria is characterized as a suburban residential community the largest city in Santa Barbara County.
The next sentence is wrong as table LU-1 states the city is only 12,752 acres within the city limits. This sentence says that it is 15,058 acres…need to resolve the numbers.
6.17 6.18
6.19 6.20
6.21 6.22
6.23 6.24
2-34
I
I
-
-
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Please note that most of the 4,500 acres of land are in the Oru cut area south of Santa Maria and is already almost fully developed.
The next three sentences are incorrect and should be deleted. 2-4 4 Again this paragraph repeats incorrect acreage.
2-4 7 Identify the optional elements Public Facilities, Rec and Park and Econ Devel. These Elements are not required and could be deleted. 2-5 1 It is too bad that this update to the Zoning maps and Zoning Ordinance could not have been done at the same time as this 5 + year effort but understand since the GP Update did not include land use maps. 2-5 2 This paragraph should be revised as this GP Update is only a goals and policy document but there are no land use or zoning plans provided for the future. It does not show how the 8,000 units of infill are going to be built out and it does not show any plans for the Annexation Area.
All of this planning work has been pushed off into the future. Please correct this,
2-5 6 Vision statement should include support of the expansion of VSFB 2-5 Bullet Revise the Agricultural objective as noted in other sections. ES-1 2-7 All bullets Revise order of the Elements per state law and list the optional elements at the end. List the housing element in the bullets with the information about when it was adopted.
2-7 Land Use designations …the city needs to work on reducing the number of land use designations. There are too many and this is the time to reduce them. See comments provided for the Land Use Elements. Many cities are simplifying their land use and zoning ordinances
2-9 Bullet 2 Does this mean that the city is going to retire the Entrada Specific Plan since it is no longer being used?
2-9 Annexation This whole section does not include the land uses and zoning to be planned for in this area. This area will include between 8,000 and 9,000 units, commercial at the interchanges, medical expansion, 6 new schools, 50 acres of parks and job creating uses. Need to provide these details in the EIR? Better, include a concept plan on how this area will be developed. Use the 1993 land use plan as an example.
Delete the last phrase
…and public land uses in annexed lands. outside of the current city limits.
2-9 Noise The maps in the Noise section are not correct as they do not include most of the sound walls that have been installed along 101 to reduce noise impacts on the community. These is a very big error that needs
6.24 6.25
6.26 6.27
6.28 6.29
6.30 6.31
6.32 6.33
6.34 6.35
2-35
I
I
I
I
I
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
to be resolved in this section, Figure 2-6, the Noise Element and in this EIR
2-10 Fig 2-3 There are many errors in this map
The land fill is not open Space???it should be CF Community Facility.
The santa maria Cemetery is colored HDR-22 but it should be CF Airport land use designations are wrong.
Area 7 is wrong.
Betteravia plaza has new land use designations.
There are no SP lands.
This figure needs to be corrected.
2-11 Fig 2-4 Again, many errors. Most of them are listed above. 2-12 Fig 2-5 Need to include the eastern island that is not noted for annexation.
This exhibit should have had a concept layout for 8,000-9,000 units and all of the other related uses need for this annexation area. at least the city could provide a list of needs for this buildout on this Figure 2-13 Fig 2-6 Rive and correct this map based on the existing sound walls along 101, there is no way that these contours impact half of the city. Also, there are many other projects with sounds walls that have reduced noise impacts along Blosser Road and this map should show this. 2-14 1 This plan should be taken out to 2050 because it has taken so long to get to this point and knowing that there is still so much work to do. 2-14 Fig 2-1 This table needs to be revised base on other tables that use other numbers. Double check the acreages.
2-14 4 Where is these 1,504 acres located? Is this in the city and not developed yet or is there other areas that the city is looking at for development. the bullets do not make sense …why is there 463 acres of Commercial use in parens…if this is a loss or change in zoning this will be a huge lose of potential sale tax dollars to the city. Wht is 7 acres of airport use ? ll of these bullets are confusing and need a map to clearly note what this is trying to say.
2-14 5 These percentages need to be revised based on the correct acreage.
Also, there are no lands in the city classified as vacant or agriculture.
All lands have city land use and zoning for future development. Delete the second sentence.
2-15 1 Through 2050 …
2-15 2 This paragraph should be revised to clearly state that most future housing projects will be exempt from CEQA based on newly adopted state laws. In the future the city will use this document as the main EIR for future projects and apply it to most projects in the future to save time and money in the permit process. There will only be few
6.35 6.36
6.37 6.38
6.39 6.40
6.41 6.42
6.43 6.44
6.45 2-36
I
I
I
I
I
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
projects that additional environmental review will be needed and this included futured annexations.
Add this statement to this Intended Use of this EIR.
2-15 Bullet 1 Update the city Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance.
Bullet 2 Rezoning Properties as dictated by future development proposal. to be consistent with the General Plan
Bullet 5 Add water, wastewater, parks, schools, etc.
Delete reference to natural /capital resource preservation and or restoration. This is not what the city is required to do as it is doing infill development and annexations.
Bullet 6 This bullet needs to be very specific as to what future studies are needed.
2-16 Bullet 3 Forward plan to LAFCO for approval of the SOI and annexations.
Environmental Setting
3-1 2 The second sentence needs to be clear that the SOI will also be expanded so that the annexations can be approved …it would be more efficient to have both the SOI amendment and the Annexations to happen at the same time like was done in 1993..
3-1 3 Delete internal farm road and state east along a service road to the city of Santa Maria water tank complex.
3-1 4 Regional transit includes SMOOTH, medical and senior transit throughout the city and should be add to this list medical transit take residence to doctors in Santa Barbara.
Also change the last sentence. Regional rail is provided by Amtrak with a bus stop at the IHOP on Main Street offramp. There is also a train station in Guadalupe to catch the train .. Freight transit is provided a by Amtrak and the SM Railroad spur from Guadalupe to the city of Santa Maria.
Details are important for this process.
3-1 5 This is a redundant paragraph and needs to be changed as noted
Delete the sentence reference agricultural and vacant use as that is not appropriate for City of santa Maria.
3-2 1 Typo in last line ..Existing instead of exiting
Environmental Impact Analysis
4.1 Agricultural Resource
4.1.1 2 This paragraph needs to be revised to provide details on the county of Santa barbara and the Santa Maria Valley
6.45 6.46
6.47 6.48
6.49 6.50
6.51 6.52
2-37
I
I
I
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
4.1.1 Urban and Built -up Land …this definition is not right. It doesn’t not include the definition of urban density of up to 30 units per acre or more. Please expand this definition to include city boundaries and allowed uses
4.1-2 1 This acreage number of 5,116 does not seem right. Table 4.1-1 does not seem right. How much of this acreage is in the Orcutt SOI area? why is these analyses including Area 5B7 Area 7and Area 9 and the Airport Specific plan. All of these planning areas a have already been analyzed and have Statement of Overriding Consideration for the future development of these planning Areas. This EIR should only be reviewing the impact on agricultural impacts on the annexation area.
Revise this table and the whole section to make clear what has already been approved in prior actions and what is being considered for the future annexation.
4.1-2 4 This paragraph needs to be clear that LAFCO ‘s consideration is only for the annexation areas
4.1-3 Fig 4.1-1 This figure is very wrong as it does not clearly identify what has been developed and been approved in Area 5B, area 7 , Area 9 including the development of Windset farms and the development of the Airport Specific plan. Also, this map and acreage should not include any of the land in Orcutt as this open space area is not agricultural uses..no row crops and no grazing. This map needs to be revised and clearly note what has already been approved by previous action by LAFCO, and city.
4.1-4 Fig 4.1-2 Add to this map the AQ Pres numbers and dates of expiration.
Delete the note in the legend that says Williamson Act Enrollment 2023. This is not needed.
4.1-5 5 and 6 Delete paragraphs 5 and 6 as they do not apply to this project and the Santa Maria Valley. These issues are not impacting the Santa Maria Valley
4.1-5 Table4.1-2 This table needs to be laid out on one page, and it should only focus on the Santa Maria Valley. There has not been a loss of ag land since the annexations of the City of Santa Maria in1993 and the 200 acres in the city of Guadalupe in 1995.
This section needs to refer to the history of planning in the santa Maria valley over the last 30 years.
Revised this whole section.
4.1-8 3 Note in this a paragraph that there are no agricultural preserves in the city of Santa Maria.
6.52 6.53
6.54 6.55
6.56 6.57
6.58 6.59
2-38
I
I
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
4.1-9 1 This paragraph needs to be corrected as there is not 5,116 acres of ag land in this planning Area and the analysis should only be on the annexation area. What and where are the nine acres of grazing land. Is it the annexation area?
4.1-9 2-3 This paragraph needs to clearly state that ag land in the city of Santa Maria have already been approved in other EIRs for urban development with Statement of Overriding Consideration. The next paragraph needs to be blended into this one.
4.1-9 4 The reference to the Greenbelt and Urban buffer is very important as it has been the guiding planning tool for the city over the last 30 years.
This buffer will be adjusted in the new SOI and annexation area.
4.1-11 Goal COS-2 Working lands: Sustainable and productive agricultural lands support healthy and diverse economic resources Revise this policy.
4.1-11 Delete Action COS -2.1.2 this is not a feasible option for the infill of the City of Santa Maria
Revise Policy LU-1.2 Infill development: Continue to encourage infill of existing residential, commercial, and industrial uses to revitalize downtown and existing neighborhoods to the extent feasible Delete the next sentence
4.1-12 Fig 4.1-3 Delete this figure as it does not have a relationship with the annexation.
Also the map has the wrong land use designations in each of the areas. The map should have included each of the Area numbers.
What about area 7 and the SMAP. Either you show all of the planning areas in the city, or you delete this map
Again, this figure should be removed as it is incorrect.
4.1-13 Revise Policy LU-9.1 Agricultural Resource. Accommodate future City growth in the SOI and annexation area while respecting agricultural resources outside of the SOI .
Delete Policy LU 9.2
Policy LU9.3 Add the phrase and active agricultural uses “outside of the SOI and annexation area”
Policy LU9.4 Add the phrase and active agricultural uses “outside of the SOI and annexation area”
The last paragraph needs to be revised to clearly state that the SOI and annexation will convert ag land to urban uses. Delete the first sentence as there will not be conservation easements for ag land in
6.60 6.61
6.62 6.63
6.64 6.65
6.66 2-39
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
the city. The city will plan land uses to address the “Greenbelt and Urban Buffer” to respect surrounding ag lands outside the city.
4.1-14 3 the first sentence needs to be revised to state:
The Santa Maria valley has over 180,000 (?) acres of prime land and an additional 100,000 (?) acres of non-prime and grazing lands. 30 years ago, the city of Santa Maria and Guadalupe annexed lands and there has been no annexations since. The city of Santa Maria annexed 2,000 acres and Guadalupe annexed 200 acres to provide land for the growth of these two cities. This is less than 1 % of the ag land in the valley.
It is important to stress the effort the city , county and LAFCO have made to plan growth and protect agricultural over the last 30 years and now is the time to allow another small annexation for future growth.
Most of this paragraph is not correct and needs to be revised.
4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission
4-.2-1
to
4.2-17
The first 14 pages are routine information in every EIR.
Suggest that Table 4.2-4 be moved to the next page so that the whole table is on one page.
4.2-8 1 Double check this first sentence as it does not seem right that the earth’s surface would be 33 degrees Celsius cooler. ??? Also, there is no mention that the world population has increased by 7 billion people over the last 200 years. This should be included in this paragraph.
4.2-9 1 This paragraph needs a table that CARB provides that start with the GHG level starting in 1990 which was over 500 MMT. The goal is to be 40% less GHG by 2030, This table will show how much the GHG levels in California have dropped. This has been done by requiring car modifications, reducing oil activities in the state and many building code requirements. Add this information to this paragraph.
4.2-14 All three paragraphs under Global Warning need to include every time there is a reference to 1990 GHG levels at over 500 MMT at that time ..you need to include this number so the reader can see how much the GHG level has already been reduced.
Provide these details.
4.2-15 Under Senate Bill 1383
6.66 6.67
6.68 6.69
6.70 6.71
6.72 2-40
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Need to provide what the 2013 levels were for each of these targets and what the current levels are for comparison.
Also note that Santa Maria has adopted the organic waste collection per this law.
4.2-16 Need to add a reference to the 2026 building code that will require more energy efficiency requirements.
4.2-17 4 This paragraph implies that every project in the future in the city of Santa Maria will have to do a GHG and Air Quality Analysis. This will be very costly in the future …why did not the City include GHG thresholds as part of this GP update. Also all infill projects should be considered GHG reduction project and not need any more studies and in most projects with housing will be exempt from CEQA by state law.
You need to make this clear in this paragraph.
4.2-18 Table 4.2-5 This table makes no sense. Only 7 acres of industrial when there are over 100 acres of vacant industrial land currently??? only 33 acres of parks when the Park Elements says they want 500 acres of parks.
Where are the 452 acres of mixed use minus 463 acres of commercial so this is saying that all commercial will be torn down and rebuilt in the next 25 years???? If it is mixed use development what is the density of residential portion of these 452 acres …how many units. If 30 units per acre there could be 12,000 units just in the mixed use infill It looks like that you double counted between res and mixed use.
Clearly this model does not know that no one is planning on building 1021 acres or millions of sf of office professional or industrial uses over the next 25 years.
It also does not include the fact the state is requiring that all existing and future development and vehicles be net zero by 2025.
So basically, this model is not correct.
This table should have been reviewed by developers and commercial real estate brokers and economic forecasters at UCSB to truth test these assumptions before running the CalEEMod
4.2-18 4 The assumption used in the CalEEMod are dated as the building code has been updated several times since 2019 and there is going to be a new update for 2026. These updates continue to add more energy efficiency to building and housing construction.
4.2.19 Table 4.2-6 This VMT table is clearly wrong. If the job/housing balance in the city is 1.5 most workers will only have to drive 5 miles to work. With all of
6.72 6.73
6.74 6.75
6.76 6.77
2-41
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
the emphasis on mass transit and hybrid working there will be much less vehicle miles traveled. Also another factor is the deduct that the model needs to provide for the substantial increase in EV being purchased. The county of Santa Barbara VMT threshold is 19 miles.
Also reference the ZEV report that SBCAG produced in January 2025.
This report needs to be referenced in this section.
Who came up with 47.6 VMT per household? Clearly wrong. Need to provide future assumption not what has happened in the past.
4.2-20 7 This paragraph and others should also reference the ZEV plan and the projected reductions in the future.
4.2-21 Thresholds Why has the city not completed a GHG threshold review fo the city? Does this mean that every project in the future is going to have to do GHG analysis but need to note that most housing project will be exempt from CEQA now and in the future. That needs to be stated here.
4.2-24 ACTION
COS-5.1.3
This action needs to be revised to state that most housing and mixeduse projects will be exempt from CEQA and will only have to follow existing conditions.
4.2-24 Policies
Actions
Many comments were provided on these provisions in the Element so make sure the recommended changes are made here to be consistent
4.2-25 Table 4.2-7 This table needs to be run again as many of the build out assumptions in table 4.2-5 and 4.2-6 are incorrect.
By 2045 -2050 many of these air quality impacts will be substantially reduced also this table needs to average this impact over the next 20- 25 year as development occurs …there is no mention that it is assuming full build out impact in 2045. Correct this table based on a corrected CalEEMod run.
4.2-25 1 Delete the first sentence. You have already concluded in the table and discussion on page 24 that there is going to be a significant impact so why would you subject hundreds of future projects with wasteful studies on air quality and GHG analysis that you have already determined will happen and there has been a statement of overriding considerations adopted. Also, many of the housing projects will be exempt from environmental review. Make this clear in this section.
6.77 6.78
6.79 6.80
6.81 2-42
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Also since there is no adopted threshold this again is a waste of time and money to do studies on all these future projects. Delete this whole mitigation measure as inappropriate for future projects.
There are standard air quality and ghg measures that are routinely required for projects based on the building code.
4.2-26 2-3 Delete or rewrite these two paragraphs. There is no need to do more studies based on this Programmatic EIR that has already run a CalEEMod on full build out. There will be an impact as projects are built out but these impacts will be progressively less, and state standards change. This is a plan fo the next 20-25 years and there will be many changes to improve air quality and GHG.
4.2-26 6 Revise this paragraph as state law requires that most construction related equipment be electric or hybrid in the next couple of years. most diesel construction equipment will be retired per state law.
4.2-28 5 MM AQGHG-3
This MM sounds like a very old standard that has already been implemented by many contractors. This needs to be reviewed by local contractors to get their opinion if this is even needed any longer. This document needs to stay up with the times and state law.
Delete if no longer needed.
4.2-30 1 Over the last five years during this GP update process the city should have also generated GHG thresholds,
2 What was the 1990 levels that we are trying to reduce by 40%? 5 Goal COS -6 needs to be revised per other comments
Encourage the city to be carbon neutral by 2045-2050 per state law.
Action COS 6.1.1 too bad the city did not already get the GHG threshold done as part of this process but since the GHG level will be exceeded by the full buildout of the 2045-2050 plan there is no need to b do any further GHG studies.
4.2-31 1 The city of Santa Maria is served by PG&E not Southern California Edison…correct this paragrpagh
4.2-31 Delete Goal COS 6 and the following as they are listed on the previous page. Redundant.
4.2-31
4.2-32
11-12
1-2
These four paragraphs need to be revised. How can something be inconsistent and consistent at the same time?
6.81 6.82
6.83 6.84
2-43 6.85 6.86 6.87 6.88 6.89 6.90
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Also reference to VMT inconsistency is inappropriate since there are many measures that will meet the VMT reductions ..first being the job housing balance that is part of this plan as well as hybrid work and mass transit and EV’s. The future will have many options to reduce AG and GHG.
Revise the first consistency statement to make it clear that the 16,140 units will be split between the infill and the 980 acres of annexation area along with schools, parks, jobs, commercial etc.
The plan is intend to take SM through 3 RNHA cycles since the last cycle Sant Maria was assigned 5,400 units to 2031. Refer to the adopted Housing Element.
Revise the second consistency finding to make it consistent.
Based on state law and other policies the build out to fhe City of Santa Maria will meet all of the future goals and stateslaws to reduce Air Quality and GHG. Also again correct that PG&E works with 3CE.
4.2-33 1 Delete the last two sentences of this paragraph as they are in conflict with most of the analysis. The city will continue in the future to meet state law and be consistent with requirements as the city grows and future plans are amended. You cannot hold the city to a 2022 Ozone plan in 2045.
Table 4.2-9 First make this whole table on one page so it is easier to read and second this whole table needs to be revised to note that development will happen over the 20-25 years and will implement many air quality Measures.
Energy is incorrect because the city is part of 3CE and they are working to be 100% energy renewable ..this should be substantially less or net zero based on state law and 3CE goals.
Mobile should also be substantially less if all cars are to be electric by 2035???
The whole net reduction section of this table is wrong as it should be substantially higher so that in the end the new development will be net zero by 2045.
4.2-34 1-2 Both paragraphs are wrong in that every statewide and local effort will result in reductions to air quality impacts and GHG impacts so that new development will be Net zero by 2045-2050
4.2-
34-36
The whole cumulative section needs to be revised to address the future state requirements to be net zero by 2035. To hold the city to the 2022 Ozone plan out to 2045 is not appropriate. This Ozone plan is scheduled to be updated in the next couple fo years. Also, the 2050
6.91 6.92
6.93 6.94
6.95 6.96
2-44 6.90
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
RTP/SCS plan will be updated to reflect the future General Plan for the City of Santa Maria. The infill plan and the planned annexation will address the requirement to reduce air quality and GHG over the next 20-25 year.
4.3- Biological Resources
4.3-1 2 Rincon has done many EIR’s and biological surveys in the santa Maria and should refer to the physical surveys that they and other consultants have done. These surveys have reports indicating very little biological resources in the SM Valley because of historic agricultural production.
4.3-1 3 Using the word “open space” is not the correct word as there is no dedicated open space it is all agricultural land uses for row crops, vineyards and grazing.
The second to last sentence is wrong. The EIR needs to be clear that the land in Area 5B, Area 9, Area 7 and the SM Public Airport are having land use designation for residential commercial and industrial uses.
The percent needs to be changed to indicate that over 85% of this land is designated for Urban uses. 29% land currently in ag/open space is an interim use before the full development in the land use designated areas occurs.
4.3-1 4 There is very little area with undistributed native habitat. According to the map most of this land is located south of Orcutt
4.3-2 Fig 4.3-1 This map is wrong. The colors in the legend do not make sense to the map.
1. Why is the SM Cemetery shown is green and there is no green color in the legend, it is not a habitat area.
2. The landfill both old and new have no biological habitat and yet this map shows all kinds of plants in the landfill area. Need to be corrected.
3. Rivergate Specific Plan has been graded multiple times and has no biological resources.
4. The Guggia and DeBarnardi property is all agricultural production so remove the brown color on their property. If it is to shown where the house and barn s are located brown area is it is much smaller than what is shown.
5. This map needs to clearly indicate that planning areas in the city. Delete reference to agricultural in Area 5B which is currently being developed with the sports fields and will be developed with 1,440 units in the next couple of years
6.96 6.97
6.98 6.100
6.99 2-45
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
6. The Santa Maria Airport needs to be corrected.
7. Area 9 is over half way developed with Windset Farms and many new industrial uses along Stowell Road .
8. Area 7 is planned for 1,000 and other uses.
4.3-3 1 Delete the last two sentences as they do not describe the biological resources of the last 100 years of agricultural production in the Santa maria Valley. Also as described in the Cultural resources most of the valley floor had very little surface water. Using the general CDFW description does not reflect SM Valley.
3 Again, delete this generic description as it does not reflect the history fo the SM valley. Agriculture is very intense and only provides very limited opportunities for biological resources.
4 Barren land does not exist in the valley. the agricultural land is too valuable and productive to go barren. Delete this paragraph. 5 Delete this whole paragraph as it does not apply to the Santa Maria valley. Also this is a generic description from CDFW and does not apply to SM.
4.3-4 2 Where in SM Valley is this Pine/Cypress habitat? This needs to be specific or deleted as it does not apply.
4-5 Chaparral is mostly located in the south Orcutt area never hear of Chamise-redshank chaparral in the Santa Maria valley. Again, this looks like a generic description but does not apply to the Santa Maria valley. This should be deleted.
4.3-5 2 Delete the word Ruderal as it does not apply.
3 Again delete the paragraph on Barren lands as it does not apply and is a generic description form CDFW. This definition should be part of the paragraph above as this is land that is being used in streets, parking structural improvements and is not barren. It is developed. 4 This paragraph uses uncommon words that are generic to the state of California CDFW.
Riverine should be called blue line river or stream and identify the Santa Maria River as such. Also what about Orcutt Creek and Solomon Creek in Orcutt.
What about vernal pools? Why are they not identified in this document as CTS are very important habitat for planning in the SM Valley. These need to be described in this paragraph
4.3-6 Fig 4.3-2 Again, another figure that is wrong.
1. This aerial photograph has to be over 15 or 20 years old and does not include Windset farms or Enos Ranch and many infill
6.100
6.101
6.102
6.103
6.104
6.105
6.106
6.108
6.107
6.109
2-46
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
projects. Rice Ranch just started grading in 2005, This EIR document should be using a very recent base aerial
photograph to show how much of the city has been developed.
2. Both Santa Maria Wastewater plant and LCSD plant discharge ponds are not Freshwater ponds!!!! This needs to be corrected.
3. There are many basins with the city for flood control and recharge. Rivergate SP Area, Waller Park, SMCC,
4.3-7 2 Delete this paragraph. Again, there are no barren areas that meet this definition unless this is supposed to be the Santa Maria Levee. In which case this section should clearly state this, but the levee serves a very important purpose and should not be a called Barren.
4.3-7 Bullets B Special Status Species whole section is in the wrong place move this to Page 4.3-9 before Special Status Plant Species
4.3-8 1 Correct refence to Appendix C not B.
4.3-8 2 Again this description does seem to apply to Central Coast Grasslands. The fourth sentence refers for fall rains which is not true, this region has winter and spring rains. Write this description to reflect the Santa Maria Valley.
The grassland and perennial grassland also need to note that in this region they are predominately used for cattle grazing and also serve as CTS habitat. Make these descriptions specific to SM Valley.
We do not the Roosevelt Elk in the Santa Maria valley
4.3-9 1 Oak woodlands in this area in located in the southern Orcutt Area. not in the city of Santa Maria or the Planning Area. Please make that clear in this paragraph.
2 Delete this paragraph as it does not apply to the area being studied in this EIR
3 Delete this paragraph as it does not apply to the area being studies in this EIR.
4.3-10 Refer to Appendix C not B on this page
What does the vicinity of this plan mean? One mile? Five miles? Show a map that was studied for this report?
2 This paragraph should be very clear that the potential for these 13 plant species is very unlikely as infill development has already reduced potential for these plants and the Planning Area for annexation has been in full ag production for over 100 years. 3 Again, what is the plan area that was studied to determine that species in the area. Also, make it clear that the development infill has very low potential and the Planning Area for annexation also has very low potential because of the 100 years of Ag. Production.
6.110
6.111
6.112
6.113
6.114
6.115
6.116
6.117
6.118
2-47
l------+---------I
1 Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
4.3-11 Last two
para
These paragraphs should be listed in bullets as it is very confusing what is the difference between Sensitive Community and Critical Habitat
1. Southern Vernal pools at Airport and on the east and west side out of the Sphere of Influence of the city.
2. Steelhead trout potential in the Santa Maria River .
3. La Graciosa thistle and the red legged frog in the southern portions of the Orcutt area.
4. No mention of Lompoc Yerba Santa in this section but it on the map. Also not mentioned on page 4.3-10???
4.3-12 3 This paragraph and Figure 4.3-4 do not make any sense.
Most of the santa Maria is not known for wildlife corridors. There are known regions of CTS on the east and west side of the Santa Maria Valley but connectivity between these vernal pools is not documented.
The paragraph refers to the Sierra Madre and San Rafael Mountains that are over 30 miles away from Santa Maria. This whole paragraph should be deleted.
The Santa Maria may serve as connectivity, but the map only shows a small polygon in the riverbed.
4.3-15 2-4 This section does not discuss the Supreme Court Decision on Water of the US, that needs to be included here.
4.3-17 2-5 Does the Supreme Court Decision have influence on waters of the state???
4.3-20 2 Again, this is disappointing that this EIR was not more thorough and clearer that future infill projects and the Planning Area will NOT have biological impacts and will NOT need additional biological surveys.
The only areas that may trigger additional biological surveys are south airport area and those areas in the southernmost sections of Orcutt SOI but most of that area has already been developed.
Revise this paragraph to make this clear.
4.3-21 1 Revise BIO-1 to make it clear that biological impacts will only happen to the southernmost areas of the Orcutt area.
4.3-21 2 Revise this paragraph to make it clear the there are no special status species within the infill areas of the city and in the Planning Annexation area. Only special status species occur in the south Orcutt area. There is no incremental loss of habits or fragmentation of open areas or loss of wildlife corridors. Delete this sentence.
Make these corrections.
6.119
6.120
6.122
6.121
6.123
6.124
6.125
2-48
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
4.3-21 Delete Policy COS-1.1 This is an infeasible policy and is inconsistent with infill development and the annexation areas.
Revise Policy COS 1.3 by stating the only place for planting biodiversity species is in city parks.
4.3-21 1 Again, there is no indication what the “Plan Area “ is. Make it clear that most of these 13 plants are located over five to ten miles from the city along the sand dunes and none of these plants are in the city or the SOI or the annexation area.
2 Delete this paragraph since none of these plants exist in the city or SOI or annexation area. so, there is no significant impact. 3 This paragraph needs to be clear that within the city there are no wildlife species found and the annexation area is production agriculture and no species found.
Make it clear that no additional studies are needed within these areas. 4 What is the “Plan Area” for these species? They have not been found in the city and the annexation area.
Revise this paragraph to make sure that there is no significant impact within the city.
4.3-23 1-2 The Mannal discussion is again not relevant to this General plan update as there are no known bat colonies in the city and the annexation area that do not have any trees. Also there have been no known badger dens in the city of Santa Maria or the annexation areas so there is no significant impact.
3-5 These paragraphs need to be clear in that none of these have been identified in the city of Santa Maria or the annexation area.
4.3-24 2 Delete whole paragraph referencing burrowing owls as there have not been any identified in the city of Santa Maria or the annexation area.
4.3-25 3-5 This whole section needs to be clear that these amphibians are not located in the city of Santa Maria for the infill sites nor are they in the Planning Area for annexation so no additional studies are needed for future developments.
4.3-26 2 Bio -1(a) This whole MM needs to be rewritten as it does not apply to the infill of the City of Santa Maria or the annexation area. Also most infill projects, particularly housing projects, will be exempt by environmental review.
The city should make it clear that there will not need to be any more bio studies except for maybe birds and bats.
This MM is poorly written and way too long. It needs to be reduced and only focused on the city.
6.126
6.127
6.128
6.129
6.130
6.131
6.132
6.133
6.134
6.135
6.136
2-49
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
BOI-1(b) Delete this MM as it has been proven that there are no special status plants in the City of Santa Maria or the annexation area. No additional studies are needed as it will be a waste of time and money.
If you want to cover this issue, make it clear that it only applies to the southern area of Orcutt.
BIO 1.(c) Delete as not appliable to the City of Santa Maria or the annexation area.
BIO 1(d) Again delete this MM to make it clear that this only applies to the southernmost area of Orcutt, There is no need for any Habitat Plans for the city since no habitat exist in the city or the annexation area.
BIO-1(e) and BIO -1 f should be deleted as they are not needed in the city of Santa maria infill and the annexation areas. These MM are too long an should be deleted as too costly and waste of time for city projects. Also most housing projects are except for environmental review nd these MM will not apply.
BIO-1(g) the WEAP training is appropriate because it includes a lot of other training beyond BIO stuff.
BIO-1 (h) there have been hundreds of city projects and none of them had legless lizards so this MM needed to be deleted as it is not needed and it is a waste of time and money for infill projects and the annexation area.
BIO-1(i) This MM needs to be substantially reduced. Having a page and half to require bat studies that are very rarely occurring in santa Maria. All you need o say is if a bio screening and assessment has been done and bats are found then standard study will apply.
4.3-32 1 BIO-1(j) this mitigation measure needs to be clear that it only applies to site with eucalyptus trees in the south city of Santa Maria and Orcutt area.
BIO-1(k) Again this MM is over kill if bird survey is to be done follow standard procedures. It should be noted that there have been very few projects in the city of Santa Maria and the annexation area that will require bird surveys.
4.3-33 3 This whole paragraph needs to start with the first statement which is that the city of Santa Maria and the annexation area have no known special status species and do not have to conduct biological surveys.
If nesting birds and or bats are determined to be in the infill areas of Santa Maria then surveys and MM will be done for them.
6.137
6.138
6.139
6.140
6.141
6.142
6.143
6.144
6.145
2-50
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Delete reference to many of the MM that are to be deleted as not needed in the city of Santa Maria or annexation area.
4.3-34 1 Impact BIO-2 This impact’s first two sentences do not apply to the city of Santa Maria since there is no wetlands in the infill of the city or the annexation the only impact is working with NPDES permits for construction impacts.
2 This whole paragraph needs to be revised to state that there are no marine habitats, or freshwater nature ponds in the city or the annexation area. The figure referenced is incorrect and needs major corrections. There are manmade flood control basins and channels that are designed to dry up most of the year
Delete Policy COS-1.1 and COS 1.3 as both policies are infeasible.
Revise COS 1.5 should be revised to only focus on birds and bats that may have potential in the city of Santa Maria and annexation area.
4.3-35 1-2 These two paragraphs need to delete refence to MM Bio’s since most of them are deleted.
4.3-36 Delete COS-1.1and COS 1.3.
Revising COS 1.5 make this police clear that the infill of the city and the annexation has no impact on species except for maybe birds and bats.
4.3-37 Delete COS -1.1 Because there is no wildlife corridor in the city or wetlands, and this policy is infeasible.
Delete the Policy COS 1.3 as it is infeasible unless it is only focused on city parks,
Revise Policy COS 3.1 as the Urban Forest Management Plan has not been adopted. Also, it is infeasible to have a 20% tree cover if the city includes all of the land in the airport district and in areas 7 and 9. This percentage should only apply to the built-out city and the infill and it should include trees on private properties, school sites, AHC and other areas.
4.3-38
4.3-39
The whole cumulative section needs to be revised to clearly state that there are no known special status species in the city or the annexation area.
The second and third paragraphs need to be revised to be clear as there are no wetlands in the city or in the annexation area. There are some CTS vernal pools in the south on the airport and Area 7 so these paragraphs should focus on this.
4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources.
6.146
6.147
6.148
6.149
6.150
6.151
6.152
2-51
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
4.4-2 6-7 Where is the Historic Overlay District? You should include a map showing this and where the following buildings are located.
Also include the map from the existing element to show the potential of cultural resources in the city
4.4-4
4.4-8
All the laws listed on these pages should include the date they were adopted.
4.4-8 SMMC
This code needs to be changed to either change the requirement to 70 years ago or only apply to buildings build before 1950. Anything after that is not a historical building and most of the residential buildings are tract houses.
Another option would be to consider buildings in the 4 sq mile area built before 1950.
Since the city goal in the Air Quilty section is to tear down almost all of the commercial buildings in the city and build mixed-use buildings this standard for existing building review needs to be clear.
4.4-9 Resource Management Element
First you need to be clear that this old element is being retired and a separate resolution will be needed to retire this element.
Second, all the maps should be in the EIR and the new elements.
In this case the map in the Resource Management Element needs to be added to this EIR and the COS Element. The map will identify those areas with negative or low sensitivity versus those areas with higher levels of sensitivity
This paragraph notes that there is a low level of cultural resource in the Santa Maria Valley, but it does not explain why. Most of the valley was in the flood plain of the Santa Maria River and cultural resources were lost in periodic flooding for over 10,000 years. Also, after the rainy season there was very little surface water available throughout the rest of the year, so the Chumash moved from the Solomon hills to the Nipomo Mesa where water was available.
The historic riverbed was the bluff running east west just north of Betteravia Road.
6.153
6.154
6.155
6.156
2-52
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
South of Betteravia into the Orcutt area there are a few sites identified.
Most of them are in the area around Orcutt and Solomon creek because of the periodic water source in those creeks.
Add this history to this EIR and the COS document.
4.4.11 Last Para This paragraph needs to be clear that before 1960 the population of the city was about 35,000 with maybe about 9,000 units, mostly in the 4sq mile area. Now the city has almost 30,000 units with many of them built over the last 70 years. They are mostly tract homes and apartments. The city ordinance needs to be revised to state that tract homes and units built after 1960 are not historic units.
4.4-12 Act COS
7.1.1 Where is the Historic Overlay District??? Where should it be expanded??
4.4-13 1 This paragraph needs to be revised to clearly note that the city ordinance is for 50 years older not 45 years old. Also, all developments since 1960 is not considered historic and are not required to be surveyed or studied. It is important to set a date and not years as the building will continue to be older but are not historic.
4.4-14 2 The last sentence should end with the phrase” …south of Betteravia Road.”
3 The last sentence should end with the phrase “…south of Betteravia road”.
4.4-15 CUL 2a, 2b, 2c
Add the phrase ….For projects and new development south of Betteravia Road the staff will determine if studies are needed…..
The MM shall only apply to south of Betteravia Road as noted on the Res. Management Map.
4.4-16
4.4-17
4.4-18
All of these paragraphs and MM need to add the phrase …south of Betteravia Road.
4.4-18 10
Cul-4a
Cul-4b
This paragraph is stating that all future projects will need to go through tribal consultants. This sounds like this is “a second bite at the apple.
The city already went through consultation process for this General Plan update and Planning Area and there was no response. Why would the city force future projects to go through additional time and money for a second round of consultation. This needs to be revised.
6.156
6.157
6.158
6.159
6.160
6.161
6.162
6.163
6.164
2-53
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
We understand that there may need to be consultation for projects south of Betteravia.
Revise this paragraph and the MM.
4.4-19 4-5 This discussion needs to be very specific as only structures in the 4 sq mile area are considered potentially historic based on dates of when buildings were constructed. Only refer to this area for additional studies with future development. Also recommend the ordinance amendment to apply to this area and buildings that were built before 1960 and maybe even earlier.
4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.5-1 This whole chapter need to include details on the following items throughout the chapter because so many things have happened over the last 30 years to improve the quality of the surface water and groundwater basin.
Twitchell Dam. Note when the Dam was built and what agencies manage the operation of the Dam. The Dam serves two purposes one is for flood control of the Santa Maria Valley. This is coordinated the BLM and County Flood Control. The second purpose is serving as recharging of the groundwater basin. Release of water and the overall dam operation is managed by the Santa Maria Water Conservation District which is run by an elected Board of Directors along with the Twitchell Management Authority that was set up by the court in the adjudication of the groundwater basin. The TMA has representatives from the city, agricultural and other ground water users.
State Water Supplemental water was delivered to the Santa Maria Valley around 1996 as part of the Central Coast Water Authority construction of the pipeline. Santa Maria is the majority holder of the state water and pipeline project. The purpose of this 17,000 AFY (??) water allocation is to improve the groundwater quality and reduce pumpage from the groundwater basin. This allocation fluctuates depending on the snowpack in the Sierras. The state water is blended with historic ground water pumpage.
Waste Water Discharge: This blende water improves water quality goes as far as improving the wastewater discharge at the treatment plant ponds that percolate in the groundwater basin and the city gets credit for this discharge in their water portfolio. The bottom line is that this whole section needs to discuss the benefit of state water in the
6.164
6.165
6.166
2-54
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Santa Maria valley and the reduction fo TDS in the ground water basin.
There is really good information in the 2024 annual basin report.
Adjudication of the basin. For over 10 years the city, farmers, and other groundwater users fought through a very expensive lawsuit on the status of the Santa Maria basin and the addition of state water. In 2007, the court determined that this basin was not in overdraft and appointed basin managers through the Twitchell Management Authority and the SM Valley Conservation District. The TMA prepares an annual report that reports to the court on the progress of this managed basin. RWQCB mainly monitors the water quality and TDS levels.
Agricultural conversation. Most of this section needs to acknowledge and provide details that the conversion of city urban agricultural and the annexation area agricultural uses will result in substantial reduction of groundwater use. In most case active row crop production will require 4 AFY of water per acre of land whereas urban uses between .5 to 1 AFY per acre or less. The buildout of the city and the annexation will result in a net benefit to the groundwater basin.
Also agricultural operators have become much more efficient in their water use. They use laser leveling and hoop houses and greenhouses, and other techniques to reduce water use. The TMA report shows documentation of this reduced water use. This needs to be noted throughout this section as a benefit to the ground water basin.
Reduced urban water use. Finally, the 2024 report indicates a 40% - 50% reduction of water use per capita over the last 25 years. This is the result of higher density projects using less water and the increase in water costs that encourage water users to conserve. This is a big benefit to the basin and will continue.
Add all this background information in this section. And include the detailed supply table from the 2024 report in this section. 5 The last sentence needs to be changed to say…Groundwater blended is state water is used for industrial, municipal, and government uses within the city.
4.5-2 1 This paragraph seems to be focused on agricultural operations from 30 years ago. Agricultural operations are much more efficient and
6.166
6.167
6.168
2-55
~-~-------1
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
substantially reduce chemical use for food production. Also, urban agricultural operations in the city are not a major source of sediment and do not impact on the city storm drain system.
Delete the third sentence as all the urban agricultural operations are located on the west side of the city and will not impact surface water in the city.
2 The first third of the paragraph should be a separate paragraph as it is discussing the end of the SM River which is located 11 miles away.
The rest of this paragraph lists all types of chemicals used in the valley, but it does not state that most of these chemicals are being substantially reduced by agricultural operators.
3 TDS levels in the basin has been improving over the last 30 years based on all of the point noted above.
The second sentence should be added to the Guadalupe paragraph above as it has nothing to do with the city of Santa Maria.
The third sentence is poorly written as it does reflect what is happening in the basin as noted in all of the points discussed above.
The water quality in the basin is improving with reduced TDS levels mainly because of the State water adding to the basin.
Revise this whole paragraph…
4 This whole section needs to be expanded to explain how the city of Santa Maria works with County of Santa Barbara Flood Control on major channels and basins that FC operate in the city.
There is also no mention of the Santa Maria Levee and what it does for the northern half of the city of Santa Maria which historically flooded.
Ther is no mention of Twitchell Dam and benefits provided to reduce flooding in the valley and the city.
Where is Lake Guadalupe (which is misspelled throughout this section)? Is it west of Santa Maria…are you sure it is not Betteravia Lake? What is a seiche???
4.5-4 Fig 4.5-1 Should label Ranta maria river along with the location of the santa Maria Levee. Also label Orcutt Creek.
Suggest providing a regional map that shows where Twitchell Dam is located as well as the Lake, and the end of the Santa Maria River. And other drainage features.
6.168
6.169
6.170
6.171
6.172
2-56
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
4.5-5 6 Need to include discussion on the Supreme Court Decision about waters of the US and what is the new definition.
4.5-11 Policy S-3.3 change ponds to basins.
Revise Policy S-3.4 to state .. “Coordinate with County Flood Control to maintain and upgrade ….”
4.5-12 Change HYD-2 …..the GP update would incrementally increase the ….
The second sentence needs to state that the SM Water conservation District and Twitchell Management Authority will assure the quality of the Groundwater Basin and the blended use of water with State Water and recharge is assuring the basin is in balance.
3 Revise the first sentence “…..Santa Maria River Valley Basin within the infill of the City of Santa Maria and the annexation area which could incrementally reduce the …..
4 Delete the last sentence as it does not make sense, you cannot reduce impervious surface while building buildings and parking lots???
5 Delete the word River in the first line….
What is the amount of groundwater rights the city has based on the adjudication of the groundwater basin…as managed by the Twitchell Management Authority. The groundwater is augmented by state waste, discharged water, and other sources for the future growth of the city and the annexation area.
4.5-14 1 The Rivergate Roemer Specific plan area is in the 100-year flood plain and will need to be designed to raise the finish floor two feet above the flood plain. This development will also need to process LOMR map revision with FEMA.
3 Correct the spelling of Guadalupe. Not sure if there is a Guadalupe Lake. What is a seiche? Show that the levee is protecting the city if anything happens with Twitchell dam. Delete reference to Lopez as that dam is 30 miles northeast of Satna Maria.
Policy S-3.6 add BLM, ACOE, and other federal agencies coordinate with county and state and city with the Twitchell Dam and the Levee.
4.5-15 Impact HYD-5 this impact is wrong in that there is an adjudicated order management plan coordinated with Twitchell Management Authority and Santa Maria Water Conservation District.
Rewrite the next two paragraphs to correct the agencies that manage the groundwater basin. The basin plan from RWQCB is mainly
6.173
6.174
6.175
6.176
6.177
6.178
6.179
6.180
6.181
6.182
2-57
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
focused on surface water and groundwater quality. TMA and SNWCD are focused on quantity and state water additions to assure that the basin remains in balance.
4.5-16
4.5-17
Cumulative Impacts.
This whole section needs to be revised to include the many points made in the comments above.
The health of the groundwater basin both quality and quantity are well managed by the Twitchell Management Authority, and this chapter needs to document how this has happened over the last 20 years and how it will continue to be well managed and improved as the city of Satna Maria grows.
4.6 Noise
4.6-4 3 Add in the paragraph…The current Santa Maria General Plan
4.6-5 Table 4.6-3 This table needs another column that identifies all segments of these roadways that have already existing sound walls or abutting structures that limit the noise level contours particularly along the US highway 101 on both sides of the highway.
4.6-10 Fig 4.6-1 This map needs to be updated to include the Enos Ranch apartment project and new school, Skyview Project, and other projects that have been approved in the last couple of years.
4.6-11 Fig 4.6-1 This exhibit needs to include Waller Park as it is included in the city of Santa Maria inventory. Also, the legend includes water which is incorrect. These are vernal pools and should be labeled correctly.
Also, not sure why they are even listed on this figure as being relevant for noise contours???
Should label this noise contour map as adopted by the County Airport Land Use Commission 2023.
4.6-11 Fig 4.6-3 This map needs to be revised to clearly indicate where existing sounds walls and structures are located that mitigate noise impacts to the surrounding area. Most of 101 has high sounds walls so that noise contours do not go beyond these walls. The contours 65 and below should not be shown on this map as they do not apply particularly along 101. The city has done a good job over the last 30 years to reduce noise impacts to residential and other uses by requiring soundwalls where they can be built.
4.6-14 Table 4.6-4 This table needs to be revised to include the city ordinance that allows exterior noise level to be 75 dBa along major corridors. Also the city is
6.182
6.183
6.184
6.185
6.186
6.187
6.188
6.189
6.190
2-58
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
now encouraging residential development without perimeter sound walls, so it results in higher noise levels in these projects These standards need to be documented in this table.
4.6-14 Table 4.6-5 This table needs to be revised as it is not correct. Daytime exterior noise level is 65 with 75 along major corridors.
4.6-15 7 This paragraph should also note that as more electric vehicles are added to the fleet of cars in the state the noise level along road ways will be reduced. As required by state law there will be only EV sold by 2035
4.6-19 7 This paragraph should also include Fairgrounds, sports fields, high school games, which are all near residential areas.
4.6-19 8 This paragraph and the following exhibit is wrong as future noise levels along roadways will be substantially reduced as EVs become the predominant vehicles and trucks in the state.
4.6-20 1 This whole paragraph is wrong as there will not be significant increases in traffic noise in the future. In fact, the noise levels on roadways will substantially be reduced based on EV and new technology.
The second half of this paragraph was very disappointing, this EIR should include analysis of 8,000 new units in the annexation areas along with new schools, parks, commercial uses. Etc. What is the point of this IR if this analysis did not happen?
4.6-21 Fig 4.6-4 This map does not look much different from the existing map on page
4.6-12. The map needs to be corrected to adjust contour lines where major sound walls and buildings are located along 101 and that reduces noise along the freeway
4.6-22 Table 4.6-8 This seven-page table needs to be revised to address the reduction of vehicle noise from new EV standards being required by the state. This information needs to be added to the consultant model which will show that traffic noise will be reduced over the next 20-25 years.
4.6-30 Policy and
Actions
All of these items need to be deleted as it is infeasible for development to pay for sound mitigation beyond their project. The idea that there is such a thing as noise reduction in-lieu fee is infeasible as there is no way to determine the cost of “quiet Pavement” throughout the city?????? Or the cost of off -site sound walls. All of these provisions need to be deleted.
4.6-30 NOI-1 For the most part this is standard condition, but the city should confirm that they have had these provisions reviewed by contractors in the area that use these requirements during construction
4.6-31 6 This paragraph should be revised based on the state requirements to have EV’s for vehicles and trucks over the next 20-25 year along with
6.190
6.191
6.192
6.193
6.194
6.195
6.196
6.197
6.198
6.199
6.200
2-59
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
hybrid working and mass transit which also will be electric that will substantially reduce roadway noise. This plan needs to address what the noise levels will be in 25 years not what they are today.
4.6-35
4.6-36
The Cumulative review needs to address the reduction in noise as both construction equipment and all vehicles transition to the use of electric vehicles.
This is the future in California, and this document needs to reflect the future requirements.
Para 1 on page 36 needs to be revised to state that traffic noise will be reduced and will not have a significant impact.
4.7 Transportation and Traffic
4.7-1 1 There is a reference to a travel demand model evaluated by GHD date June 2025. But there is no indication that the TDM was reviewed by the public and other traffic consultants. Where is this study… it should be an Appendix. And it should be peer reviewed by local traffic engineers…why did they not do a VMT analysis also??
The city has an adopted screening tool for infill projects that do not have to do any further studies. This map needs to be added to this sections.
4.7-1 3 The list of uses needs to include truck hauling routes for agricultural products and industrial haul routes for VSFB and other industries.
4.7-2 9 Is this paragraph correct? I have worked on many projects along Betteravia and never heard of this classification for Betteravia??
4.7-3 Table 4.7-1 This table needs to be expanded
1. include the road right of way widths for each of these roadways.
2. how do complete streets change the width and design of these road segments? Do complete street standards only apply to new city streets? What is the whole right of way width needed for a complete street? Travel lanes, sidewalks, trees, bikeways. You should include a cross-section of what a complete street is? Or provide details in the appendix.
3. need definition for public alley ways
4. need to have definition of private roads and driveways for small lots and multifamily development that will not have complete street design. These private streets will not be maintained by the city so they will save maintenance costs for these private roads ,, they will be maintained by private HOA’s.
Active Transportation Plan should be included as an Appendix.
4.7-4 Fig 4.14-1 This map needs to be updated to include the connection to 101 and UVP, extension of Seaward Drive to 101. Revised the location of
6.200
6.201
6.202
6.203
6.204
6.205
6.206
6.207
2-60
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Bradley Road through Enos Ranch. Include the road pattern for the Blosser ranch Specific Plan. Include the roads for Area 9 and 7 that are part of the Circulation element
Need to identify all of the measures A projects that are already funded.
4.7-5 All of the bikeways need to include the standards and widths for each bullet.
4.7-5 SMRT. This paragraph states that ridership is rapidly increasing. Need to provide a table of ridership over the last 10-20 years to prove this statement. Ther may be some routes that higher level of ridership particularly for the schools.
4.7-6 There are six bullets describing transits but there are more that need to be added
SMOOTH, Dail a Ride, Senior Transits and Medical Transits that are provided by Marian and other medical services. These are important services that do not cost the city anything but serve needy clients.
4.7-6 GHG Every reference to GHG emissions to 1990 levels need to include what the emission were in 1990. If I remember at the time California documents that GHG was at 540 MMT. What was the level in 2020? Was it achieved?
4.7-7 This document needs to include the 2021 Active Transportation Plan so readers can see where these bikeways are to be located. Did the ATP include the annexation areas? If not does this mean that the ATC now needs to be updated to plan bikeways in the annexation area? Why was it not part of this EIR and General Plan update?
4.7-8 SMRT..Did the Short-Range Transit Plan include a map? It should be included in this EIR to show what has been approved. Did the plan include the annexation area? if not, does this mean that this plan will need to be revised for the annexation area?
5 This section needs to provide a map and table which shows existing traffic in the city and what is proposed by 2045. Along with LOS.
I know that EIR’s do not have to include traffic studies with LOS for roadways and intersections, but Table 4.6-8 future noise impacts provide the details on the traffic existing now versus what traffic is going to be generated in the next 25 years. There are roadways and intersections that will experience 2 to 5 times as much traffic as existing now. Where is the plan that identifies those roadways and intersections that will operate at LOS F at full build out. This EIR needs to include a map for the circulation element for 2045-2050.
6.208
6.209
6.210
6.211
6.212
6.213
6.214
6.215
2-61
t------+--------- I
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
For example, Broadway south of Betteravia will have traffic increased from 47,500 ADT to 91,630 ADT. What does that mean for that road segment. Where is the plan for the future of the circulation element.
What is this going to do for the AB 1600 fees and other funding sources for road improvements?
This EIR and the General plan elements need to be consistent with each other and at this point they are not.
4.7-10 Bullets need to include the Travel Demand Model. Is this model to be used in the future by local traffic engineers to determine impacts on roadways and intersections? Or is the model the sole source of GHD and every traffic study in the future is only done by this firm? Delete Policy CIR-1.2 as privately maintained driveways and streets will not be designed to meet complete streets requirements.
What is a Street Network? What is a Bikeway Network? What is the Pedestrian Priority Improvement network? Thes plans need to be in the EIR or an appendix.
Policy CIR-1.3 Delete reference to private streets
Action CIR-2.2.2 another sentence should be added to this Action.
The AB1600 traffic fees collected from development projects will be used as matching fund for future grants and funding programs.
Policy CIR-6.4 What is Transit Oriented Development? There is no mention of this in any part of this EIR. Should there be more information provided or reference the source for this?
4.7-12 Delete CIR-6.1 This circulation Element and EIR should have included the citywide street design standards so the public would know what the city is planning.
Again, here is a reference to a plan SM Regional Transit Standards? Does this plan already exist? When was it adopted?
Action CIR-6.4.3 Delete second bullet as it is inconsistent with the Noise element and this EIR noise section.
Delete the last to wo bullets as they are inconsistent with other policies. First most projects will have private streets, and the HOA’s will not allow buses to come into these projects. Second, the last bullet is subjective and inconsistent with the Objective Design Standards that the city has adopted.
Policy CIR-7.2 this policy is inconsistent with the General Plan element they proposes to Annex 980 on the east side of the freeway.
In fill should not take priority over the annexations. Revise this policy
6.215
6.216
6.217
6.218
2-62
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
to state that infill and annexations areas will prioritize mixed-use development ….
4.7-13 Again this whole page includes references to Bikeway Network, pedestrian Priority Improvement network and ATP but does not provide these maps.
At he end of the page it says that there are no MM but what about major road improvements that will be needed to address 2-5 times as much traffic in the major streets and intersections in the city over the next 25 years.
4.7-14 Table 4.7-4 Why is new development being treated differently? Why do these projects have to reduce VMT to 24.2 and 32.8 %. This is infeasible and the law only requires a 17% reduction.
The last sentence does not make sense as the CARB requirement is only 17%. Revise this sentence.
Also what does the new state law AB130 do for VMT requirements?
4.7-15 Policy CIR-7.1 and Action CIR-7.1.1 It is important to note that most housing projects will be exempt from environmental review. They will not need to do traffic studies or address VMT because they will be infilled.
Please add this note to these policies
Policy CIR-7.2 see comment above to revise this Policy. 6 The sentence on page 4.7-14 says the city will be consistent with CARB standards but this paragraph says the city would be inconsistent. Please clarify which is correct.
4.7-15 7-8 So based on the two paragraphs does it mean that every future project that is not a housing project will be required to do an EIR because it will not be able to reduce the VMT’s below 17% or if an employer it has to reduce VMT by 32.8%...Basically most new employers (retail and industrial /office uses) will have to make sure their employees do not have cars and can only ride bikes and buses or walk!! Or they will have to pay huge mitigation fees which have not yet been determined.
Or will the Statement of Overriding Consideration for this EIR override the need for future VMT impacts.
4.7-16 Policy CIR-1.3 delete reference to private street
4.7-17 Same comments from above on the first three items.
Policy CIR-1.9 this policy needs to be separated into two policies. the first should just focus on LOS for roadways and intersections and
6.218
6.219
6.220
6.221
6.222
6.223
6.224
6.225
6.226
6.227
2-63
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
based on the Table in the noise section it is clear that the LOS in the city will be D, E, or f by full build out. There is no need to require Deficiency plans as we already know that most intersections on Broadway Betteravia and other major arterials will be significantly impacted in the future.
The policy should focus on bicyclists with the known increase of traffic on the major corridors the city should be focus on moving bicyclists to other side streets.
MM this infill buildout will result in significant traffic impacts throughout the city and needs to be addressed EIR. We need a detailed map that shows future roadways, and which intersections will exceed LOS D,E,F. .
How is the city going to address these major impacts?
4.7-18 2 Does this Paragraph mean that the city will accept LOS D, E and F throughout the city at full build out.
Also the third paragraph seems to imply that all future projects will need EIR’s because they will not be able to reduce VMT below these new thresholds. Need to be clear that most housing projects will be exempt from CEQA and will not have to address VMT reductions because they are infill projects as indicated in the city screening tool
4.8 Utilities and Service Systems
4.8-1 2 Also add to this paragraph that the adjudication included return flows from the wastewater treatment plant for the percolation ponds.
This section should include how the city has been very successful in reducing water consumption per capita.
The same is the reduction of water use in agricultural operations.
4.8-2 Table 4.8-1 This table needs to be formed on one full page to make it easier to read.
Does this table and report from WSC qualify as a WSA per state law since there are more than 500 units?
4.8-3
4.8-4
Wastewater section. What is the current flow to the treatment plant? With a 50% increase in population over the next 25-30 years what will be the capacity of the plant at that time? Will there be the need for more upgrades to the plant or will the city build a new plant to serve development on the east side of the freeway?
6.227
6.228
6.229
6.230
6.231
6.232
2-64
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
If all the effluent from new development on the east side of the freeway and the infill development is all going to the existing plant, then the existing trucklines and other pipelines be able to convey the wastewater to the plant or will there be major pipeline upgrades across the city to the plant.
The information about wastewater is very important for the future of the city and City Council and LAFCO needs to know what is being planned. Please expand this section.
4.8-4 Stormwater basin…you should include A street basin and the north Blosser Basins as they are the biggest basins in the city.
The Blosser Channel drops into the Blosser basin for infiltration and Water quality improvement before spilling into the Santa Maria River.
It should include a fourth bullet that describes the Green Canyon Water shed and all of the improvements that have been constructed over the last 30 years to convey storm water through the southern portion of the city. The water conveyance starts with the Bradley square project with the channel and pipeline to the two basins at McCoy Lane the water then moves through the government center.
There is a pipeline at the Miller Street and Betteravia intersection that takes the water through the OHS center then across Broadway through the west side to the Battles Channel and then to the Hobbs Basin. Prior to all of these improvements there was yearly flooding at Miller and Betteravia and in the residential areas on the west side of town.
4.8-5 Solid waste section needs more details.
First this section needs to go over the process to establish the Los Flores Landfill and when it will be open and operational.
Second, what will happen to the closure of the existing landfill? When will this happen? The land fill will still operate as a transfer station.
Third there is no discussion about the food organic waste tha tis now required to be pick up for residential and commercial food related businesses.
Fourth Need to have a discussion about the hazardous waste collection and how that is going to operate in the future .
6.232
6.233
6.234
2-65
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Fifth, why is the city considering hauling trash to Cold Canyon landfills, it is very far to travel daily? Is this correct? Is this only temporary until the Los flores Landfill is operational?
4.8-13 3 This paragraph needs to be revised to clearly state the City of Santa Maria has already installed a major water trunk line from the water tanks east of the city to Panther Drive. This trunk line will serve the annexation area.
4.8-14
4.8-15
This section indicates that the plant can serve full buildout of the general plan and annexation area. The question is if the plant is currently operating at 9.99 MGD and the proposed 16,140 units is 50% of the existing units then would not the new effluent be 5 MGD for a total of 15MGD which will exceed the sewer plant capacity.
It does appear that the plant will need to be expanded so will the city be looking at upgrades in the future.
It looks like the east side will not need a separate plant.
If not, where are the major trunk lines that will convey effluent from the east to the existing wastewater plant? Are they sized correctly for future additional sewer?
This information needs to be in this EIR document to confirm that the city will be able to serve the east side feasibly.
4.8-16
4.8-17
Again, this section lacks the needed information on how storm water conveyance will be handled on the east side of the freeway. How many access points are there along the levee to discharge storm water to the river? Or does the storm water follow the current drainage system to Jim May Park and then to the Blosser Basin and then to the river. This information needs to be part of this EIR and not deferred to a future analysis.
If this regional drainage plan is not addressed, it could be a fatal flaw on the development of the annexation area. This cannot be deferred for future projects to figure out.
4.8-16 Already provided suggested changes to these goals and policies in the hydrology section and in the general plan.
4.8-17 1 This EIR should provide enough information for the overall regional infill drainage improvements for the 8,000 to be built as well as the annexation area. How will the drainage be conveyed to the river is the most important issue for the annexation area?
4.8-18 This whole page should be referring to and incorporating information from the 2024 annual report of the Santa Maria Valley Basin
6.234
6.235
6.236
6.237
6.238
6.239
6.240
2-66
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Management plan. This document has so much information about the health and management of the groundwater basin along with many great exhibits. I refer to this document anytime there are questions or discussions about the basin. On page 38-39 is the discussion on the projected water use by 2040 and the whole city with build out will be 18,700 AF. This information needs to be added to this section.
3 What is the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan? When was it adopted and how often is it updated?
4.8-19 1 A 20% reduction would result in water use to be 85 gallons per day per capita
3 This section should also include reference to the 2024 Basin Management Plan because it has the best information about the basin water supply and the water use throughout the basin.
And note that the total city water use by 2045 will be estimated at 18,700 AF.
4.8-20 3 Again, the question is did the city decide not to build the Los Flores Landfill and instead plan on future trash transported to the Cold Canyon Landfill about 30 miles north of Santa Maria? The city staff report on December 5, 2023 still refers to the city use of the Los Flores landfill in the future. Please correct the record.
What is the city going to do with the 1,500-acre Los Flores property if it is not going to be a landfill??
4.8-21 5 This paragraph needs to state the existing water use, projected new water and the total in 2045 at full build out.
Has the city determined what water lines in the city will need to be upgraded if there is 8,000 more units in the city????
4.8-21 6 As noted earlier the math does not seem right and there could be up to 15MGD at full buildout which means there would have to be more upgrades to the plant.
Please provide how the math was done. Also what major trucklines will need to be upgrades to serve the east side of the freeway.
4.8-22 Please correct the last paragraph about where future trash will be hauled to and what is planned for Los Flores?
4.9 Effects Found Not to be Significant
4.9-1 3 Revise the second sentence.
There is no view of the Santa Maria River except from the 101 bridge or the levee trail located to the north of the city. Name the ridges, rolling hills and the mountains to the east. Also note the Solomon Hills and Casmalia Hills to the south.
6.241
6.242
6.243
6.244
6.245
6.246
6.247
6.248
6.249
2-67
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
This paragraph needs to include the newly adopted Objective Design Standards for housing and mixed-use projects.
4 …and Objective Design Standards….
4.9-2 1 This paragraph is a repeat of Paragraph 3 on the previous page and should be deleted. If keep it needs to be rewritten per the comments above.
2 Rewrite Policy REC-8.1 Protection of recreation use. Preserve and expand public parks and the levee trail that provide recreational, ecological and scenic benefits for residents.
This is an important amendment because there is no publicly owned and designated open space in the city. The only designated COS is in active urban agricultural uses and privately owned.
5 This paragraph references Executive Order N-79-20 requiring construction trucks will by electric by 2035. This order is not listed or considered in the Air Quality chapter fo this EIR or on page 4.2-23.
This should be added and considered in reductions to AQ and GHG impacts.
4.9-3 1 Suggest listing all of the counties that 3CE serve.
4.9-5 Action S-1.1.4 Most of the historic buildings are single story and wood construction. How many buildings are constructed with unreinforced masonry material?
Delete Action S-1.2.1 this is already in the Building Code and the zoning ordinance.
4.9-6 Action S-1.3.1 this action item can be deleted as this is already required by the building code. This will save the city time and money.
4.9-7 1 The reference to the escarpment should be clear that is about 20-30 feet in height and is not subject to landscapes in the City of Santa Maria or the annexation area.
4.9-8 1 This parfrahg needs to be revised. The first sentences need to state that “Areas of expansive soils are known to be unlikely within the city limits.. they are known to be in the southern portion of the Orcutt area.,,”
3-4 This paragraph needs to be revised to state that over 100 years of development and construction in the city of Santa Maria and Orcutt there have been paleontological Resources found. The santa Maria valley has been historical flooded by the Sant Maria river and the Orcutt area s consist of historic sand dunes.
4.9-11 2-4 Ther is no mention of Allan Hancock college site and the 8-10 new elementary school sites and 3 junior high sites and 2 new high school sites.
6.250
6.251
6.252
6.253
6.254
6.255
6.256
6.257
6.258
6.259
6.260
6.261
6.262
2-68
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Need to include a map that shows how far existing and new school sites are from 101 and other truck routes through the city. Do the schools need to be .25 miles from these truck routes?
5 This EIR should include a map that locates where these 90 active hazard sites are located. Are you including active and historic oil wells in this number?
4.9-12 This page should remove references to City Petroleum Engineer.
Refer to new state law about setbacks for new oil development up to 3,200 feet from existing residential areas.
Action S.4.1.3 and Action S-4.1.6 seem to be saying the same thing and one of them should be deleted.
4.9-13 Action S-4.2.5 does the city issue any permits for the railroad operations. Are they exempt from city permits?
4.9-15 Need a page break between the two action items
4.9-18 6 There is no land in the city that is zoned for agriculture. Ther are lands that are zoned for urban use that are currently in urban agricultural production.
The second sentence needs to be revised “….the 2045 General Plan provides for the framework for development of up to 16,140 net new primary and up to 1,300 accessory units. The units will be distributed with 8,000 units as infill units and 8,140 units in the proposed 980 acre annexation area.”
7 The last sentence seems contrary to the requirement for infill development including ADU and JADU. This sentence should be revised to state that all neighborhoods can potentially have infill units.
4.9-19 Action LU-1.1.2 this action item should be deleted as the ODS has already been adopted or revised to state this.
Policy LU-1.2 delete the word deteriorating and replaces it with existing neighborhoods
Revise the next sentence with
“Accommodate growth while respecting surrounding agricultural lands outside of the adopted Sphere of Influence.”
6.263
6.264
6.265
6.266
6.267
6.268
6.269
6.270
6.271
2-69
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Policy LU-1.3 Areas of Change need to include reference to the annexation areas for the development of 8,000+ units and related other uses including schools, parks, commercial etc.
Policy LU-1.5 There is no mention in the Elements or this EIR what the current job housing balance. What is it and how
4.9-21 1 Ther is no mention of the mining that has been done in the Santa Maria Riverbed for gravel and sand for construction and other uses.
4.9-22 This paragraph should include the fact that there will be at least two more RHNA cycles and new housing assessments during the life of this 2045-2050 General Plan.
4.9-23 Frie Protection section needs to be expanded to provide existing setting for fire service including how many fire stations and how many current fire fighters are in the city, Then this section needs to provide details on the future needs of the fire department including how many fire stations will be needed as the city densifies with infill development and the future annexation areas. How many fire fighters will be needed and how many new fire stations? And how will they be funded?
This EIR and General Plan should have provided these details now for the City Council to make an informed decision for future needs.
The Police section needs to be expanded to include existing number of police officers and the existing police station and the needs for the future include how many more offices needs and will there be new substations in the north and east of the city?
This information is needed to inform the city council about the future and how these services will be funded.
The school section is sorely lacking in information about how many new schools are going to be needed for 16,140-unit residential units. 8 new elementary school sites need to be 10-12 acres
3 new Junior high sites are 20 acres in size and
2 High schools are 40-60 acres in size
This is approximately 200 plus acres of school sites. Where will these sites be located? How is there going to be new school sites in the infill areas of the city? There is very little land of these sizes in the existing city. What are the plans for the annexation areas for new school sites.
This is information that the City Council and LAFCO will need to make an informed decision about the future of the city.
6.271
6.272
6.273
6.274
6.275
6.276
2-70
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
There is also no information about the plans for Allan Hancock College and there should be because it is a very important part of the future education of the residents of santa Maria and future job growth
4.9-24 This whole Park and Recreational Facilities section is fatally flawed as there is not enough land in the city to meet the old standards.
O keep the current standards of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents the city will need to obtain another 145 acres of park land and sports fields.
With half of these future residents in the infill of the city at least 75 acres of additional parkland would need to be found and it does not exist. An additional 75 acres would b3 planned fo the annexation areas.
What is worst is if the city maintains that old standard of 5 acres per 1,000, then there would be the need to find 300 acres of additional lan for future parks.
This section needs to provide details on where all this parkland will be found and how much it will cost the city over the next 30 years.
This is a significant impact unless the city changes the policy to only require the same ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 that currently what the city has accomplished over the last 30 years or even reduce the acreage ratio to less in order to save costs in the future.
This is a critical issue that needs to be fully analyzed in this EIR so the City Council can make an informed decision or the other option is to annexation of a whole lot more land for schools and parks The footnote at the bottom of this page needs to add other calculations including 5 aces per 1,000 at full build out would be about 840 acres and again this infeasible and unaffordable.
Also, there is no mention of the parkland at Los Flores and how much money the parks department has spent at that park. If these 300+ acres are included in these acre numbers maybe the city can meet the
2.5-acre number.
Finally, the last sentence on indicates that the only way to fund these hundreds of acres of park land and construction is to have future dwelling units pay for them…this is infeasible.
6.276
6.277
2-71
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
Please answer all these questions in this section.
4.9-25 Library…it should be noted that libraries are experience a 30% reduction of use based on access to the internet and other technology.
Also all new school sites have library resources.
Where would new library buildings be located if needed. Agree that there are many commercial and office buildings that could be used for satellite library services.
Wildfire analysis is wrong.
This section needs to note that a majority of the city of santa Maria is surrounded by active agricultural production that limits potential for wildfires. The recently approve new CalFire map indicates that there is a potential for fire hazard in the Santa Maria Riverbed and in the Solomon Hills area south of Orcutt
4.9-26 Add a note that SMAPD now serves as the aerial firefighting base for CalFire.
5. Other CEQA Required Discussions
5.1 2 What is the current job housing balance number? How is this plan going to meet a 1.2 job housing balance?
5.1 Policy LU-1.1 there is no definition in this document of in the elements of what a complete community means. This is very important to be clear as to what the city is looking for in the future.
Why is there not an action item for the future planning of the annexation areas? This should be the highest priority for the city to plan the area east of the freeway.
5-2 As noted, previously this policy needs to be revised to state,,, respecting agricultural outside of the new SOI and annexation area by adopting the No Urban Growth Boundary agreement.
5-3 Also refer to the No Urban Growth agreement on areas outside of the new SOI and annexation area.
5-4 4 This paragraph needs to be revised to state that no known arch sites have been identified in the city over the last 35 years and they are not expected to be found north of Betteravia so there would not be impacts north of Betteravia.
Even south of Betteravia it is unlikely to find resources since there has been so much agricultural activities on the undeveloped and. 6 Alternatives
6.277
6.278
6.279
6.280
6.281
6.282
6.283
6.284
6.285
6.286
2-72
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
6.1 As noted previously the agricultural Identity objective needs to be revised or it will be used against the city by LAFCO for the proposed annexation areas.
6.4 4 Revise the words urban footprint to “city boundary” Delete or revise the second and third sentences as all of the MM are standard requirements and would apply today for current development projects except housing projects that are exempt from environmental review.
6-4 Revise the cultural Resource section to reflect the previous comments about no resources north of Betteravia so no more surveys will be required,
6-4
6-5
6.6 Make changes to these sections based on the comments provided previously.
6-6 Please add in this Description paragraph that the in-fill alternative will have 16,000 units and commercial office development all within the existing city limits. This alternative is fatally flawed as there is no room in the city for 200 acres of new schools and 100’s of acres of new parks, The only way this kind of design could be accomplished is to allow many high-rise buildings and multi-level buildings on existing school sites. This would result in a negative impact on aesthetics.
The ag section this alternative would retain the no Urban Growth Boundary in its current location.
Delete the last sentence as most urban agriculture has urban land use designations on these lands for future development and these residentially designated lands have already been included in the Housing Element to meet RHNA numbers. This sentence is in error.
All of the other sections need to be revised based on previous comments already made in this comment letter.
6-10 Alternative 3 Where is the map to show how many acres of land the Greater Annexation Alternative would plan? This alternative may be the best because it would give the city additional land for the building out as proposed along with the land for future school sites, and parks and the need for other services and job generating uses. 6-10-
13 All these sections need to be revised per previous discussions. 6-14 The discussion on the infill Alternative avoids discussion on items that prove this alternative to be fatally flawed…
Where will the 200 acres of new school sites be located? Where will hundreds of acres of parks be located?
6.287
6.288
6.289
6.290
6.291
6.292
6.293
6.294
6.295
6.296
2-73
Santa Maria General Plan Update
Draft EIR Comments
September 27, 2025
What about the huge impact on aesthetics when the city is developed with high rise buildings and two to three-story school buildings on the existing campuses? This will be a significant impact.
What about the water and sewer lines that will impact and need to be upgraded to serve 16,000 units in the existing city?
The infill option has only one net benefit impact and that is on agricultural
6-14 Table 6-1 this table should be formatted to be on one page to make it easier to ready.
6.296
2.297
2-74
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 6
COMMENTER: Laurie Tamura, Principal Planner of Urban Planning Concepts, Inc DATE: September 26, 2025
Response 6.1
The commenter expresses concern about the length of the review period for the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, and states that several issues should be addressed before approval.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on August 14, 2025 and ended on September 28, 2025. Two public meetings were held to receive comments on the Draft EIR, including a virtual meeting on August 19, 2025 and an in-person meeting at the City of Santa Maria Public Library on August 20, 2025.
The commenter provides a summary of their forthcoming comments. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.2
The commenter states that the document does not include information on how the annexation area will be developed to accommodate over 8,000 housing units and associated uses such as commercial areas, schools, parks, roads, and infrastructure.
The Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with potential growth in the annexation area, as discussed in Subsection 2.6.3, Annexation, of the Draft EIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIRs). The footnote on page 2-16, in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR explains that the City’s annexation application would require approval by Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Projectspecific details are required to be addressed through future planning and subsequent environmental review, if required, at such time as new development in the annexation area is proposed. Project -specific details are required to be addressed through future planning and subsequent environmental review by the applicable agency, if required, at such time as new development in the annexation area is proposed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.3
The commenter raises concerns that the Draft EIR does not identify locations for new schools to serve future residents. The commenter also raises concerns regarding overcapacity in schools.
The Draft EIR discusses potential environmental impacts to school services at a programmatic level in Subsection 4.9.3, Public Services and Recreation. The analysis concludes that impacts to school services from the 2045 General Plan Update would be less than significant. School site planning and land acquisition are the responsibility of local school districts and may occur at such time as proposed new development results in the need for new schools in Santa Maria. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-75
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.4
The commenter raises concerns about the City’s parkland standard, questions what parks are included in the parkland total, and notes the absence of discussion regarding park-related costs in the Draft EIR. The commenter recommends reducing the City’s park policy.
The parkland area referenced in Section 4.9.8, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR is based on the total acreage of existing City of Santa Maria parks. This data is presented in the table titled “Existing Parks” on page 97 of the City’s Land Use and Community Design Existing Conditions Report, referenced in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does not discuss fiscal impacts of future development and maintenance as CEQA does not require analysis of fiscal impacts unless they have the potential to result in a physical environmental impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.5
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not include information regarding necessary upgrades to water and sewer trunklines throughout the city or how wastewater treatment would be provided for the annexation area. They ask whether a new treatment plant is proposed or if effluent would be conveyed through existing major trunklines to the current facility. The commenter also raises questions about the extent of expansion needed at the existing plant to accommodate an increase in capacity and associated costs.
Section 4.8, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR addresses water and wastewater service capacity. The analysis concludes that implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update would increase demand for water, wastewater, and solid waste services, but these impacts would be less than significant due to existing system capacities, City policies, and compliance with applicable regulations. The costs of Infrastructure planning for future development are not evaluated in the Draft EIR, as CEQA does not require analysis of fiscal impacts unless they have the potential to result in a physical environmental impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.6
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the traffic impacts of a projected 50% increase in citywide traffic, lacks identification of roadway and intersection improvements needed to maintain LOS D, omits cost estimates for such improvements, and does not include a map of the proposed circulation system. The commenter states that the Noise section (Table 4.6-8) presents more detailed traffic-related data than is evaluated in the discussion of traffic impacts.
Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR evaluates potential traffic impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which replaced level of service (LOS) as the metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA. While LOS is no longer considered a CEQA impact, it is discussed in the Draft EIR for informational purposes, including in Table 4.6-8 (Traffic Noise Modeling Data) and related discussions in Section 4.6, Noise.
Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR also includes a list of proposed policies under the 2045 General Plan Update related to transportation planning and improvements. A map of the existing circulation system is also provided in the General Plan as Figure 4.7-1, Current Circulation Element Roadway Functional Classification. CEQA does not require analysis of fiscal 2-76
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
impacts or identification of specific roadway improvements unless they have the potential to result in a physical environmental effect. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.7
The commenter states that the Draft EIR and General Plan documents do not include a map or discussion of the approximately 1,500-acre Los Flores Park area owned by the City of Santa Maria, including the status or future plans for a previously proposed 300-acre landfill. The commenter questions why the EIR references hauling waste to Cold Canyon Landfill by 2034 instead of utilizing the City-owned site. Additionally, the commenter states the absence of discussion regarding the Los Flores park area, including trails and amenities funded by park and general funds, and requests clarification on future plans for this site.
The Draft EIR discusses solid waste disposal in Section 4.8, Utilities and Service Systems, which states that the Santa Maria Regional Landfill is expected to remain operational through 2034, and that after operation of the Santa Maria Regional Landfill ends, the City may divert waste to nearby facilities such as the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has sufficient capacity and is anticipated to operate through 2040. The Draft EIR concludes that regional landfill capacity is adequate to accommodate the increase in solid waste generated by buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update and that no significant impacts related to landfill capacity are expected.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for the Los Flores Park area mentioned by the commenter, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.8
The commenter raises concerns about references to future environmental review.
The Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15168 for longrange planning documents. As the 2045 General Plan Update does not include proposals for specific projects and it is not possible to know project specific details, including heights and density, at this time, the analysis within the Draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for specific developments projects, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of future potential development at a project level of detail, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. If required and necessary, environmental analysis of future projects may be conducted for projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update at the time that they are proposed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-77
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.9
The commenter suggests editorial changes which do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or CEQA. This specific instance of editorial changes relates to the order the General Plan Update Elements are listed in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR.
The commenter requests changes that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis. Therefore, this comment does not require a formal response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), which states that lead agencies are required to evaluate comments on environmental issues raised in the Draft EIR and prepare written responses. Comments that do not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis, such as those focused on editorial changes, planning policy or implementation details outside the scope of the EIR, do not require a formal response under CEQA.
As this comment does not identify a new significant impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.10
The commenter suggests changes to the General Plan Update’s objectives.
This comment pertains to the 2045 General Plan Update and does not raise a question or concern regarding the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update are noted and will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.11
The commenter requests additional detail in the Executive Summary regarding the project description, growth assumptions, and infrastructure needs for each alternative.
The Draft EIR Executive Summary provides a high-level overview of the alternatives, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, which describe the purpose of the Executive Summary in an EIR.
Detailed descriptions of each alternative are provided in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.12
The commenter suggests revising a statement within the Executive Summary section of the Draft EIR regarding areas of known controversy.
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR from February 15, 2025 through March 17, 2025 and received seven written responses from the public and government agencies.
Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR summarizes all comments received during the Notice of Preparation process, and describes areas of known controversy based on the comments received during the scoping process. Expansion of the annexation area into agricultural land was not identified as an area of controversy during the scoping period for the Draft General Plan EIR. The following language has been added to Chapter 1 of the Draft EIR:
2-78
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on August 14, 2025 and ended on September 28, 2025. Two public meetings were held to receive comments on the Draft EIR, including a virtual meeting on August 19, 2025 and an in-person meeting at the City of Santa Maria Public Library on August 20, 2025. The City of Santa Maria received nine comment letters on the Draft EIR. Comments on the Draft EIR and responses are provided in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR.
Potential impacts to prime agricultural land are addressed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources.
This section determined the 2045 General Plan Update would result in the conversion of agricultural lands, including Important Farmland and lands under Williamson Act contracts (though currently in nonrenewal), particularly within the annexation area. While the plan includes policies to minimize impacts, these measures would not fully avoid or mitigate the loss of farmland. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Response 6.13
The commenter anticipates that updates to mitigation measures may be necessary and suggests that Table ES-1 is updated accordingly.
If changes to mitigation measures are warranted through the responses to the Draft EIR, such changes would be noted in the Final EIR including updates to the Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary. The commenter is not suggesting any changes to mitigation measures in this comment, so no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.14
The commenter recommends extending the General Plan horizon year to 2050.
This comment does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR but rather is a comment on the Draft General Plan. The commenter’s preference will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. For context, the 2045 date was selected based on three Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycles (24 years) and a start date of the General Plan Update planning process in 2020. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.15
The commenter requests additional historical detail on past annexation efforts. The commenter also requests editorial changes which do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or CEQA.
The Draft EIR evaluates the 2045 General Plan Update in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, which outlines the required contents of a Project Description for an EIR, including a description of the project’s objectives, intended uses, and a general statement of the project’s location and setting. While the Draft EIR does not include a detailed history of the 1993 Sphere of Influence and annexation plan, it acknowledges that the 2045 General Plan Update builds upon the City’s long-range planning framework, including prior annexation efforts. Additional historical and environmental setting information may be found in the City’s General Plan Update materials available on the Imagine Santa Maria General Plan Update website. This includes the Draft General Plan, background reports, and maps that provide context for the planning area and proposed annexation. For more detailed historical documentation, including the 1993 Sphere of Influence Expansion EIR (SCH #90010930), the commenter may contact the City of Santa Maria Planning 2-79
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Division to request archived planning documents. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
For a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis, refer to Response 6.9.
Response 6.16
The commenter suggests that the General Plan be labeled as a 2025 plan and expresses concern that the document refers to itself as a “blueprint” for the city, despite being a policy document without specific development plans. The commenter also requests that the language be revised to clarify that the bullet points listed on page 1-1 of the Draft EIR are not specific projects included in the General Plan or the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the 2045 General Plan Update, which is a policy document that does not include proposals for specific development projects. The Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis of the potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIRs).
The reference to the General Plan serving as a “blueprint” reflects its role in guiding future land use and development decisions, not in prescribing specific development plans. The bullets referenced in the comment are intended to summarize the plan’s guiding objectives and are not proposed projects included in the General Plan or the EIR. If required and necessary, environmental analysis of future projects may be conducted at the time they are proposed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.17
The commenter suggests the EIR should more explicitly state its purpose and include specific growth assumptions throughout.
Chapter 1, Introduction, Subsection 1.1.2, of the Draft EIR states that the purpose of the EIR is to inform public agency decision-makers and the public about the significant environmental effects of the 2045 General Plan Update, identify ways to minimize those effects, and describe reasonable alternatives, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) and Section 15168 for Program EIRs.
Growth assumptions are addressed throughout the EIR, particularly in Subsection 2.4.5, Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout, Subsection 4.9.7, Population and Housing, and Section 5.1, Growth Inducement, of the Draft EIR, which discuss the potential for population increases and the potential environmental effects of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.18
The commenter states that a full EIR on the infill and annexation for the city should have been prepared opposed to a programmatic one.
A Programmatic EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 (Program EIRs) and 15121(a), which allow a broad, policy-level analysis for long-range planning documents such as a General Plan Update. As explained in Subsection 1.1.2, Purpose and Legal Authority, on page 1-2 of the Draft EIR, this approach evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementing the 2-80
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
General Plan at a conceptual level, while future site-specific projects will undergo additional CEQA review as needed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.19
The commentor asks that a paragraph in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR be revised to correctly list the required and optional General Plan elements in the order specified by State law and to note that the General Plan horizon year should be 2050.
This comment focuses on editorial edits that do not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR nor would it change the analysis in the Draft EIR. For a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis, refer to Response 6.9.
Response 6.20
The commentor asks that a footnote be revised to clarify that any development within the Sphere of Influence can and will be processed by the City of Santa Maria for annexation, with the County acting as a responsible agency for the annexation application.
The footnote on page 2-1 of the Draft EIR, in Chapter 2, Project Description, defines the Sphere of Influence and describes its purpose for the purpose of the Draft EIR. The footnote on page 2-16, in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR explains that the City’s annexation application would require approval by LAFCo. Project-specific details are required to be addressed through future planning and subsequent environmental review, if required, at such time as new development in the annexation area is proposed. The applicable agency would oversee planning and subsequent environmental review, if required. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.21
The commenter requests that Figure 2-1 include areas outside of the city of Santa Maria including the 1,500 acre Los Flores property to the southwest of the Orcutt area. The commenter states that there will be a 300 acre landfill in this area.
The Draft EIR evaluates the 2045 General Plan Update and annexation areas anticipated within the General Plan Update. The Los Flores property referenced by the commenter is located southwest of the Orcutt area, and is outside of the City and its Sphere of Influence. The 2045 General Plan Update does not include or discuss plans for the alteration of Los Flores Park. The Draft EIR cannot evaluate the environmental impacts of a project that is not proposed as part of the 2045 General Plan Update as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.22
The commenter asks that a paragraph on page 2-4 in in Chapter 2, Project Description, be revised to correct the description of Santa Maria’s location relative to U.S. 101, add information about a Cityowned service road and water storage tanks, include details on the 1,500-acre Los Flores property (noting parks, trails, and a potential future landfill), and move the last sentence of the paragraph to the following paragraph.
2-81
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
In response to this comment, the following revision to Chapter 2, Project Description, has been made on page 2-4:
The linear portion of Santa Maria is located on the east side west side of U.S. 101.
The remainder of the comment pertains to areas outside the scope of the 2045 General Plan Update or, similar to comment 6.9 above, includes editorial suggestions which would not alter the adequacy or analysis within the Draft EIR. Therefore, other than the revision to the cardinal direction above, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. For a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis, refer to Response 6.9.
Response 6.23
The commenter asks that the EIR include references to regional transit services provided by the Santa Maria Organization of Transportation Helpers (SMOOTH) and other medical or senior carriers and also include the Santa Maria Valley Railroad in the discussion of regional rail services.
The Draft EIR identifies major regional transportation providers relevant to the 2045 General Plan Update in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.1, Setting, and references regional rail services in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.4, Regional Setting, and in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Section 3.1, Setting. The commenter’s requested edits are informational and are not required to support the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.24
The commenter asks that a paragraph on page 2-4 of Chapter 2, Project Description, describe Santa Maria as the largest city in Santa Barbara County, as opposed to a suburban residential community.
They also suggest that there are acreages listed in this paragraph that conflict with those listed in Table LU-1. The commenter also states that most of the 4,500 acres are in the Orcutt area and largely developed, and they request removal of three sentences due to these sentences being incorrect, according to the commenter.
The Draft EIR reflects the best available data from the City’s Land Use and Community Design Existing Conditions Report. The acreage referenced in the Draft EIR is provided on page 12 of the City’s Land Use and Community Design Existing Conditions Report. The Draft EIR does not include a Table LU-1. Table LU-1 in the General Plan Land Use Element has been removed in the final version of the General Plan.
In response to this comment the following revision to Chapter 2, Project Description, Subsection
2.3.2, Local Setting, has been made:
The City of Santa Maria is characterized as a suburban residential community. The plan area covers approximately 15,058 acres within the city limits and approximately 4,500 acres within the SOI (City of Santa Maria 2020). Approximately 27 percent of land within Santa Maria is occupied with residential uses, primarily consisting of single-family residences (22 percent).
Agricultural uses occupy 14 percent of the city, airport uses occupy 11 percent, public and institutional uses occupy 11 percent, and commercial uses occupy 7 percent. Approximately 19 percent of the city is comprised of vacant land. Residential land uses are distributed throughout the city. Non-residential land uses, including industrial and commercial, commonly line major 2-82
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
corridors in Santa Maria, including Broadway, Main Street, and Betteravia Road. Agricultural and vacant uses are located at the periphery of the city. The city is underlain by the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Subbasin. The local climate in Santa Maria is identified as a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters.
The additional detail requested by the commenter regarding the 4,500 acres being mostly developed is not necessary for the adequacy of the Draft EIR and would not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis.
Response 6.25
The commenter suggests another occurrence of incorrect acreage.
As mentioned above in Response 6.24, the Draft EIR reflects the best available data from the City’s Land Use and Community Design Existing Conditions Report. The commenter does not provide sufficient conflicting information or data to warrant a correction. As a result, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required based on this comment.
Response 6.26
The commenter notes that Public Facilities, Recreation and Parks, and Economic Development are optional General Plan elements. The commenter requests that these elements be identified as optional.
In accordance with the State of California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation General Plan Guidelines (2017), the Public Facilities, Recreation and Parks, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan are not required. The commenter’s requested edits are informational and do not affect the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.27
The commenter expresses disappointment that zoning updates were not completed alongside the General Plan Update.
The City will include an updated zoning map to be approved concurrently with the adoption of the 2045 General Plan Update. A comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance will be a future planning effort. Updating zoning maps and the City’s Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 2045 General Plan Update land use designations would not result in a new or additional environmental impact. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required based on this comment.
Response 6.28
The commenter suggests revising a paragraph on page 2-5 of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR to clarify that the General Plan Update is limited to goals and policies, without accompanying land use or zoning plans. They note that the document does not illustrate how the proposed 8,000 infill units will be developed or address planning for the annexation area.