Santa Maria City Council
May 5, 2026

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” General Comments
Caltrans supports the objective: Transportation Innovation – designed to create a balanced, equitable, affordable, and reliable transportation network where pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, rail, and transit can safely and efficiently navigate to/from their destinations. Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all users and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral parts of the transportation network.

Caltrans looks forward to reviewing and providing feedback on land use developments that are proposed in and around the SHS. Early coordination with Caltrans is encouraged.

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Santa Maria is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the SHS.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses VMT analysis for land use projects, please refer to the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide.

The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Per the DEIR, this project is found to have a significant VMT impact with no feasible policies or mitigation measures that could reduce citywide rates of VMT below the 17% reduction target by the horizon year 2045. However, VMT is projected to decrease for both per household and per employee VMT between the existing baseline year and horizon year.

Caltrans supports both Policy CIR-7.2: Prioritize land use development patterns that reduce VMT and Policy LU-4.3: Mixed-use development. Efficient land use can place housing closer to jobs and amenities creating shorter trips for all users. Denser land use offers an opportunity to connect users to their destinations with an integrated multimodal network featuring transit, shared mobility, biking, walking, and other lowcarbon modes. The state supports reducing VMT in ways that increase the likelihood that people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.

No mitigation measures were listed for reducing VMT in the DEIR. Caltrans encourages the City to consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee programs to help reduce impacts on the SHS. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans and Trip

9.1 9.2
2-184
Ms. Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) September 29, 2025

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Reduction Programs should be considered for land development projects with significant and unavoidable impacts to further mitigate VMT. For more information visit Caltrans Transportation Demand Management Toolbox.

Complete Streets
Caltrans strongly advocates for the planning and implementation of Complete Streets.

These streets prioritize the needs of all users, regardless of age or ability, by incorporating high-quality infrastructure for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.

Improvements may include features such as secure bicycle parking, pedestrianfriendly LED lighting, clear wayfinding signage, and seamless connections to nearby active transportation options or transit facilities. Complete Streets contribute to a range of positive outcomes, including improved regional connectivity, enhanced air quality, reduced traffic congestion, better first/last-mile connections for transit users, and overall increased safety for all modes of transportation.

The following comments are based on the DEIR and Circulation Element.

DEIR Transportation and Traffic 4.7:
• This section is missing a reference to the City's 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan when discussing relevant planning documents.

Santa Maria General Plan Circulation Element:
• Page 17 of the Circulation Element (Figure CIR-2: Bikeway Network) is missing several existing bikeways. For example, the following locations contain bikeway facilities that are missing or incorrect including SR 135 (Broadway) and SR 166 (Main Street).
• Page 17 of the Circulation Element (Figure CIR-2: Bikeway Network) is inconsistent with the Class I facilities proposed in the Recreation and Parks Element (Figure REC-2: Trail System). Please consider adjusting either figure to have consistent bikeway recommendations for Class I shared-use paths within the city limits. Inconsistencies are present in multiple locations such as Union Valley Parkway, the west side of Highway 101 from Betteravia Road to Battles Road, Foxenwood Lane, Pioneer Park region, South Miller Street, Santa Maria Way, Sunrise Drive, Blosser Road, La Brea Avenue, Blosser Road, Grogan Park region, Preisker Park region, Suey Road, and Panther Road. • Page 20 of the Circulation Element, please include Main Street as a Pedestrian Priority Improvement Network to be consistent with the 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan.

9.2 9.3

9.4 2-185
Ms. Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) September 29, 2025

“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Encroachment Permits
Please be aware that if any future work is completed in the State’s right-of-way it will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans and must be done to our engineering and environmental standards, and at no cost to the State. The conditions of approval and the requirements for the encroachment permit are issued at the sole discretion of the Permits Office, and nothing in this letter shall be implied as limiting those future conditions and requirements. Project Oversite maybe needed depending on the complexity of the project. For more information regarding the encroachment permit process, please visit our Encroachment Permit Website at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Should you have any questions or need further clarification on the items discussed above, please contact me at (805) 888-1508 or email
[email protected].

Sincerely,
Chris Bjornstad
Associate Transportation Planner
District 5 Development Review
CC: Veronica Lezama, Branch Chief – Regional Planning & Local Development Review (South)

9.5 2-186
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 9
COMMENTER: Chris Bjornstad, Associate Transportation Planner with Caltrans District 5 DATE: September 29, 2025
Response 9.1
The commenter summarizes the role of the California Department of Transportation in reviewing local plans that may affect the State Highway System and expresses general support for the 2045 General Plan Update’s transportation objectives.

The information summarized by the commenter is included in Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-1 to 2-8, of the Draft EIR, which includes a discussion of the Circulation Element and its emphasis on multimodal transportation. Additional context is provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Section 3.1, Setting, page 3-1, which outlines the regional transportation context including U.S. 101, SR 166, and SR 135. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response 9.2
The commenter summarizes Caltrans’ approach to evaluating vehicle miles traveled impacts and states that the Draft EIR identifies a significant VMT impact with no feasible mitigation to meet the 17 percent reduction target by 2045, though they state VMT per household and per employee is projected to decrease. The commenter expresses support for General Plan policies and encourages the City to consider VMT mitigation strategies such as a VMT mitigation fee program, Transportation Demand Management plans, and trip reduction programs.

This information is discussed in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, pages 4.7-1 to 4.7-18, which presents the VMT analysis and identifies a significant and unavoidable impact due to the inability to meet the 17 percent reduction target by 2045. Related policies are described in Subsection 4.7.3, Impact Analysis, pages 4.7-8 to 4.7-14, which explain how land use strategies such as mixed-use and infill development are intended to reduce VMT. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response 9.3
The commenter summarizes Caltrans’ support for Complete Streets and states that the Draft EIR Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, does not reference the City’s 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan.

The commenter is correct that the Draft EIR does not currently reference the City’s 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan when discussing relevant planning documents in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, pages 4.7-7 through 4.7-8. A reference to this plan has been added to the Final EIR in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.2.c, Local Regulations, pages

4.7-7 through 4.7-8. The language within the Regulatory Setting discussion on pages 4.7-7 through

4.7-8 has been revised in the Final EIR to incorporate the following underlined language:
2-187
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Santa Maria Regional (formerly Area) Transit Short Range Transit Plan Update
In 2018, the City of Santa Maria hired a consultant to update to its Short Range Transit Plan. This plan is the guiding document for the City’s public transit program. Before this update, the most recent full update was completed in 2008, with a subsequent update in 2015 that focused on Santa Maria Regional Transit’s (SMRT’s) evening service and fare policy. In 2021 the City prepared an Addendum to the Short Range Transit Plan incorporating post-COVID route and schedule revisions. The current Short Range Transit Plan includes a series of service recommendations in four categories: performance improvement, service enhancement, policy, and innovation/technology.

Santa Maria Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan
The Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan was adopted in January 2019 to guide the transformation of Santa Maria’s Downtown streets into vibrant, multimodal corridors. Funded through a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant, the plan builds on the City’s Downtown Specific Plan and Caltrans’ Main Street, California program to promote Complete Streets principles. The plan provides conceptual design guidance for Broadway and Main Street, aiming to improve safety, walkability, and livability while accommodating all users—pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and vehicles. Key goals include reducing lane widths, adding bike facilities, widening sidewalks, and enhancing intersections with traffic calming and landscaping.

The plan emphasizes community engagement and reflects input from extensive public outreach, prioritizing beautification, connectivity, and economic revitalization. While the plan does not constitute final design approval, it establishes a framework for future engineering and implementation phases in partnership with Caltrans and identifies potential funding strategies for phased improvements.

The addition of the summary of the Santa Maria Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan into Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.2.c, Local Regulations, does not change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. In addition to this reference, acknowledging the 2045 General Plan Update’s compliance with the 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan, the Draft EIR also discusses multimodal transportation planning and related policies in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.3, Impact Analysis, pages 4.7-8 to 4.7-14, including policies that support pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure. The Draft EIR describes applicable local planning documents such as the 2020 City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan in Subsection 4.7.2.c, Local Regulations, pages 4.7-7 through 4.7-8.

Response 9.4
The commenter summarizes concerns related to the bikeway and pedestrian network mapping in the General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, they note that Figure CIR-2 (Bikeway Network, page 17 of the Circulation Element) omits existing bikeways along SR 135 (Broadway) and SR 166 (Main Street), and is inconsistent with Class I shared-use path recommendations shown in Figure REC-2 (Trail System) of the Recreation and Parks Element. They also suggest that Main Street be included in the Pedestrian Priority Improvement Network to align with the 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan.
2-188
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
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. The figure referenced by the commenter appears in the 2045 General Plan Update Circulation Element but does not appear in the EIR. 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 changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.

Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response 9.5
The commenter summarizes standard requirements for future work within the State’s right-of-way, noting that such work will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans and must meet Caltrans engineering and environmental standards. The commenter also states that any impacted Caltrans facilities must comply with ADA standards and maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction to support equitable access.

The commenter is correct that future work within the State’s right-of-way would be required to comply with Caltrans procedures, permitting, and standards. This comment does not raise specific concerns or recommendations related to the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-189
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
This page left intentionally blank.
2-190
Recirculation Not Warranted
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
Recirculation Not Warranted
The Final EIR contains revised chapters of the Draft EIR. The minor revisions to the Draft EIR would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The revisions to the Draft EIR chapters identify textual modifications to the Final EIR. The revised text serves to amplify, correct, supplement or clarify, information in the public review Draft EIR. It does not substantively affect the level of impact nor the conclusions presented.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.

CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred but before the EIR is certified (Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)).

The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (items a, b, and e) read as follows:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Revisions to the Final EIR are briefly summarized in the following discussion:
 Revisions to the Executive Summary carry over language from Chapter 1, Introduction, and clarify the dates of circulation of the Notice of Preparation. 3 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
3-2
 Revisions to Chapter 2, Project Description; Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources; and Section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, clarify typographical errors and update existing setting information.
 Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 has been revised to incorporate Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District current best practices.
 Revisions to Section 4.3, Biological Resources, clarify typographical errors and order of presented information in the existing setting sections.  Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been revised to update the years of age threshold for buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features to be consistent with existing City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.
 Revisions to Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, clarify typographical errors and remove irrelevant information from figures.
 Revisions to Section 4.6, Noise, clarify typographical errors, add clarifying language regarding uses of figures, and adds relevant regulatory setting information.  Revisions to Section 4.7, Transportation, clarify existing roadway uses, bicycle path requirements, existing public transportation, regulatory setting information, and typographical errors in the setting section.
 Revisions to Section 4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant, include typographical errors, clarifications regarding Objective Design Standards, clarifications regarding service areas of providers, clarifications of existing setting of the city, and clarifications of existing setting of city services.
 Revisions to Chapter 6, Alternatives, add clarifying language related to the Infill Only Alternative and agricultural land.

These edits to the listed EIR Chapters and Sections would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]). Therefore, the revisions to the aforementioned EIR Chapters and Sections would be consistent with the minor modifications as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).

The information and revised wording of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 and Mitigation Measure CUL1 added to this Final EIR would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a new significant environmental impact that would result from the revised mitigation. These mitigation measures were already included within the impact analysis and these revisions make corrections to mitigation to include current best practices and Santa Maria municipal code requirements. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]).

Revisions to the Draft EIR would not result in an impact that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Finally, additional information provided in this Final EIR does not present a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the EIR that the City has declined to adopt and that would lessen an environmental impact.

Recirculation Not Warranted
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
The information added to this Final EIR supplements, clarifies, amplifies, and corrects information in the Draft EIR. The City has reviewed the information in the Final EIR and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. This decision is supported by substantial evidence provided in this EIR.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
3-4
This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Statutory Requirements
When a Lead Agency makes findings on significant environmental effects identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the agency must also adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21081.6(a) and California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Sections 15091(d) and 15097). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is implemented to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR are implemented. Therefore, the MMRP must include all changes in the proposed project either adopted by the project proponent or made conditions of approval by the Lead or Responsible Agency.

Administration of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City of Santa Maria (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for the adoption and implementation of the MMRP. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a), a public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation. The City may delegate responsibility for verifying and documenting compliance with the MMRP to an Applicant as coordinator of the project and its construction, and the Applicant will be responsible for compliance. However, until mitigation measures have been completed, the City, as the Lead Agency, remains responsible for ensuring that the implementation of the measures occurs in accordance with the program.

Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 is structured to enable quick reference to mitigation measures and the associated monitoring program based on the environmental resource. The numbering of mitigation measures correlates with numbering of measures found in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the EIR.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-2
This page intentionally left blank.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-3
Table ES-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation.

The City shall require, where it is determined as necessary, applicants for future discretionary development projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update to prepare a project-specific air quality analysis in accordance with SBCAPCD Environmental Review Guidelines. The analysis shall quantify construction and operational emissions and compare estimated emissions to the SBCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. If the analysis determines that emissions would exceed any of the applicable thresholds, the project applicant shall implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below the thresholds. All mitigation measures shall be documented and verified by the lead agency prior to project approval or issuance of grading/building permits.

The project applicant shall submit all
mitigation measures to the lead agency for
review and approval prior to project approval
or issuance of grading/building permits.

The lead agency shall verify
compliance with mitigation
measures during
construction.

Lead agency
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:
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 4 Final engine emissions standards. Where available, off-road construction equipment should be 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 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.).

The project applicant shall submit the
construction equipment exhaust control
documentation to the City for review and
approval prior to project approval or issuance
of grading and construction permits.

City staff shall spot check for
compliance during
construction.

City of Santa
Maria
Biological Resources
BIO-1(a) Biological Resources Screening and Assessment.

For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City Staff, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures BIO-1[b] through BIO-1[k)]) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.

The applicant shall submit the results of the
baseline Biological Resources Screening and
Assessment to the City prior to project
approval or issuance of grading and
construction permits. If required, the
applicant shall submit the biological
assessment to the City prior to project
approval or issuance of grading and
construction permits.

The City shall ensure that
the applicable biological
resource assessment has
been completed and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.

City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(b) Special-status Plant Species Surveys.

For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO1[a]) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.

If special-status plants are not found during special-status plant surveys, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2B plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys, the Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c) and BIO1(d) shall be implemented.

The applicant shall submit the survey results
to the City and CDFW and/or USFWS, as
appropriate, for review and/or approval prior
to project approval or issuance of grading and
construction permits.

The City and CDFW and/or
USFWS, as appropriate, shall
review the survey results
and provide confirmation of
compliance with the
conditions outlined in the
measure.

City of Santa
Maria; CDFW;
USFWS
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-4
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(c) Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation.

If federally-listed and/or state-listed individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1[b]) and would be directly impacted by development, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm. Prior to initiation of construction activities the project proponent shall submit a site plan depicting the location(s) of special-status plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and approval.

If special-status plants can be avoided, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.

The applicant shall submit a site plan
depicting the location(s) of special-status
plants and avoidance buffers to the City for
review and approval prior to the issuance of
grading or construction permits.

The City shall review the site
plan and avoidance buffers
and provide confirmation of
compliance with the
conditions outlined in the
measure.

City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(d) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

If federally- and/or state-listed plants, non-listed special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, or waters of the US and/or State cannot be avoided and will be impacted by development facilitated by the plan, the City shall require mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1 per acre of impact (and 1:1 per tree), to be determined in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable, for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City for review and approval. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components.

Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).

Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).

Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).

Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).

Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).

Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).

Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.

An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.

Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.

Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).

All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.

If a federally and/or state-listed plant species has the potential be impacted, an HMMP shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.

Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, documenting compliance with the HMMP and achievement of success criteria.

The applicant shall submit the HMMP to the
City, and CDFW and/or USFWS, as applicable,
for review and approval prior to the issuance
of grading and construction permits. Within
30 days of completion of monitoring, a final
HMMP monitoring report shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval,
documenting compliance with the HMMP and
achievement of success criteria.

The City, CDFW and/or
USFWS shall review and
approve the HMMP for
compliance prior to issuance
of the grading and
construction permits.

City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(e) Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys.

For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that suitable habitat may be present for federal- or state-listed, candidate, or proposed species, the City shall require protocol habitat assessments/surveys be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits.

If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the project applicant shall be required to complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.) The applicant shall submit results of required
protocol survey(s) and consultation with
CDFW and/or USFWS to the City for review
and approval prior to the issuance of any
grading and construction permits.

The City shall review the
survey results and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(f) Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization.

For development facilitated by the plan where potential impacts to aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species are identified by the project specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), the following measures shall be applied.

These measures shall be implemented during
grading and construction activities. The
applicant shall provide monthly maintenance
reports during construction to the City
City staff shall spot check for
compliance during
construction.

City of Santa
Maria

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-5
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.

All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31,if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and maybe subject to regulatory agency approval.

All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities.

Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.

No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.

If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.

For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWS approved biologist. This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of three feet above grade and two feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than five feet. The applicant shall inspect the fence weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.

All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.

No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.

At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.

All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.

Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Santa Barbara County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.

Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation MeasureBIO-1[a]). The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation.

Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction
compliance monitoring staff to document
compliance with the measures.

BIO-1(g) Worker Environmental Awareness Program.

For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels and prior to construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the City shall require the project proponent to arrange Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel to attend, conducted by a City-approved biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status resources that may occur in the construction area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP training and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.

City compliance monitoring staff shall review
WEAP information prior to the training and
verify the selected biologist is qualified with
the appropriate professional qualification
standards. The applicant shall provide the
attendance log that includes the names and
signatures of all personnel that have received
the training to City compliance monitoring
staff for verification prior to any ground
disturbing activities in the project area.

The City shall review training
materials, notification, and
attendance log and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.

City of Santa
Maria

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-6
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(h) Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization.

For all development facilitated by the plan in undeveloped areas and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, a pre-construction clearance survey for Northern California legless lizard shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The survey shall cover the entire disturbance footprint within suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible, and should identify all special-status wildlife species observed on the project site. During the pre-construction survey the qualified biologist shall inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other suitable refuge. If Northern California legless lizards are identified, individuals shall be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable cover with loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the project site, as accessible. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, for review and approval.

A report of the survey results conducted
within 48 hours prior to the start of
construction shall be submitted to the City,
for review and approval.

The City shall review the
survey results and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.

City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(i) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal.

For all development facilitated by the plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.

If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
 When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
 Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than

0.5inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
 Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
 If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following:  If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure.
 If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season(April 15 to August 31).
 Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two.
 Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required.
 If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.

Results of the survey(s) shall be submitted to
the City within 30 days of completion. If
necessary, the biologist shall provide a
roosting bat protection plan for City review
and approval. The qualified biologist shall
determine compensatory mitigation, as
applicable, in conjunction with CDFW.

The City shall review the
survey results and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure. The City
shall conduct spot checks
during construction to
ensure compliance with the
roosting bat protection plan.

City of Santa
Maria; CDFW
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-7
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(j) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization.

For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, the City shall require that all construction activities (including equipment staging, grading, and construction) shall be avoided during the monarch butterfly overwintering season between October 15 through March 15, if practicable. In the event construction activities cannot be avoided during the overwintering season, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for roosting monarch butterflies within seven days prior to initiation of construction activities to determine their presence/absence.

If no monarch butterflies are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary. In the event construction pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if construction is planned to restart during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October 15 through March 15), the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a new survey in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure.

If construction activities occur during the overwintering season and monarch butterflies are present, the qualified biologist shall establish a protective buffer, ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the roosting site in which monarch butterflies are aggregating. The buffer shall be delineated on site by the biologist with flagging or staking visible by construction personnel. The construction contractor shall ensure no construction occurs within the protective buffer, including staging of equipment or stopping or idling in the buffer, during the overwintering season. In the event construction activities, or other use of equipment, is needed to work within the buffer, the qualified biologist shall be present on site to monitor construction activities and determine if the work is disturbing the aggregated butterflies. If the biologist determines the work is disturbing the butterflies, the biologist shall have the authority to stop work within the protective buffer at any time.

In addition, due to the regular movement of the butterflies and locations of the aggregations, the biologist shall have the discretion to adjust the protective buffers, as necessary.

City staff shall conduct a preliminary review
of undeveloped parcels prior to the initiation
of construction activities. If necessary, the
City shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct pre-construction survey(s) within
seven days prior to initiation of construction
activities. The applicant shall consult with a
qualified biologist during construction.

The City shall review the
survey(s) prior to project
approval and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure. City
compliance monitoring staff
shall spot check in the field
throughout grading and
construction.

City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(k) Pre- Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.

For all development facilitated by the plan, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radius surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the Santa Maria region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest.

Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.

The applicant shall submit the results of the
pre-construction survey(s) prepared by a
qualified biologist to the City prior to the
commencement of construction activities.

The City shall verify that project site plans
include a statement acknowledging
compliance with the federal MBTA and
California Fish and Game Code.

The City shall review the
survey(s) prior to project
approval and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure. City
compliance monitoring staff
shall spot check in the field
throughout grading and
construction.

City of Santa
Maria
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Historical Built Environment.

If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that propose to significantly alter or demolish any historic-age features (i.e., structures determined to be over 50 years of age based on available City records, such as permitting records) shall be required to submit a historical resources evaluation prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The report shall address areas containing buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 50 years of age or older and are proposed to be altered or demolished as a part of the proposed project. The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All The applicant shall submit the historical
resources evaluation report prepared by a
qualified architectural historian to the City for
review and concurrence prior to project
approval.

The City shall review and
approve the historic
resources evaluation prior
to project approval.

City of Santa
Maria
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-8
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The historical resources evaluation report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be completed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). Applicants shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

CUL-2(a) Archaeological Resources Assessment.

If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that involve ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading) shall be required to submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects which include development in archaeologically sensitive areas, as designated by the City, to locate any surface cultural materials.

If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation.

If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist. The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.

The applicant shall submit the archaeological
resources assessment prepared by a qualified
archaeologist to the City for review and
concurrence prior to project approval.

The City shall review and
approve the archaeological
resources assessment prior
to project approval.

City of Santa
Maria
CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discoveries.

For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall be required to retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve ground disturbing activities within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts, may be determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.

If necessary, the Applicant shall submit to the
City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a qualified archaeologist prior to the issuance
of project approval and the issuance of
grading and construction permits. The City
shall verify the selected archaeologist is
qualified with the appropriate professional
qualification standards.

City permit compliance staff
shall confirm monitoring by
the City-approved
archaeologist and City
grading inspectors shall spot
check fieldwork. Periodic
reports of the find and
subsequent evaluations shall
be submitted to the City
during construction.

City of Santa
Maria
CUL-2(c) Workers Environmental Awareness Program.

For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall ensure a City-approved archaeologist provides a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered.

City compliance monitoring staff shall review
WEAP information prior to conducting the
training. The City shall review and approve
the selected archaeologist to ensure
qualification with the appropriate
professional qualification standards. The
applicant shall provide the attendance log
that includes the names and signatures of all
personnel that have received the training to
City compliance monitoring staff for
verification prior to any project-related
ground disturbing activities in the project
area.

The City shall review training
materials and attendance
log and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-9
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CUL-4(a) Workers Environmental Awareness Program.

For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to invite a City-approved archaeologist to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The City would also invite consulting Tribe(s) to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP training shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP would emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and would discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with local tribal values.

City compliance monitoring staff shall review
WEAP information prior to conducting the
training. The City shall invite consulting
Tribe(s) to the WEAP training. The applicant
shall submit the attendance log that includes
the names and signatures of all personnel
that have received the training to City
compliance monitoring staff for verification
prior to any project-related ground disturbing
activities in the project area.

The City shall review training
materials and attendance
log and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.

CUL-4(b) Tribal Cultural Monitoring.

For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to retain a tribal monitor to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities that will occur within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource.

If necessary, the Applicant shall submit to the
City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a tribal monitor prior to the issuance of
project approval and the initiation of grounddisturbing activities.

City staff shall spot check for
compliance during
construction.

City of Santa
Maria
Noise
NOI-1 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Noise.

The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible measures as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions.  Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors.
 Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors.  Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.  Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible.  Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.
 Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater). Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

Construction plans shall note construction
hours, truck routes, and required noise
reduction measures, and shall be submitted
to the City for approval prior to grading and
construction permit issuance for each project
phase. Noise reduction measures shall be
identified and described for submittal to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance
of grading and construction permits. They
shall be adhered to for the duration of the
project. The applicant shall provide and post
signs stating these restrictions at construction
site entries. Signs shall be posted prior to
commencement of construction and
maintained throughout construction. The City
of Santa Maria Building Division shall confirm
that construction noise reduction measures
are incorporated in plans prior to approval of
grading and construction permit issuance.

City staff shall ensure
compliance throughout all
construction phases.

Building inspectors and
permit compliance staff
shall periodically inspect the
site for compliance with
activity schedules and
respond to complaints.

City of Santa
Maria
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-10
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
NOI-2 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Vibration.

The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible buffers for construction equipment as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction vibration analysis and identify the following buffer distances during demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions.

To reduce potential construction vibration impacts, the City of Santa Maria shall require the following:
 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the following construction activities: 1) within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources; 2) within 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); 3) use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical resources or 25 feet of any other structure; or 4) use of a dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or 15 feet of any other structure. The noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed the City’s architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure the FTA’s vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Construction plans shall note construction
hours, truck routes, and required vibration
reduction measures, and shall be submitted
to the City for approval prior to grading and
construction permit issuance for each project
phase. If necessary, based on the findings of
the groundborne noise and vibration analysis,
vibration reduction measures shall be
identified and described for submittal to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance
of grading and construction permits. They
shall be adhered to for the duration of the
project. The City of Santa Maria Building
Division shall confirm that construction
vibration reduction measures are
incorporated in plans prior to project
approval and issuance of grading and
construction permits.

City staff shall ensure
compliance throughout all
construction phases.

Building inspectors and
permit compliance staff
shall periodically inspect the
site for compliance with
applicable mitigation. If
necessary, construction
vibration monitoring shall
be conducted.

City of Santa
Maria
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report, as Revised
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
Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................ES-1 Alternatives................................................................................................................................ES-3 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-3 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................................ES-3 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR.......................................................................................ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-4 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Overview of the Plan ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ............................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Scope and Content.......................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies....................................................................... 1-7

1.4 Environmental Review Process....................................................................................... 1-8 2 Plan Description.......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Plan Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Plan Proponent/Lead Agency.......................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Plan Area Location and Environmental Setting .............................................................. 2-1

2.3.1 Regional Location ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3.2 Local Setting ........................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.3 Existing Plan Area Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Plan Objectives................................................................................................................ 2-5

2.6 Plan Characteristics......................................................................................................... 2-7

2.6.1 2045 General Plan Update Organization............................................................. 2-7

2.6.2 Land Use Designations ........................................................................................ 2-8

2.6.3 Annexation .......................................................................................................... 2-9

2.6.4 Noise Contour Revisions...................................................................................... 2-9

2.6.5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout .............................................................. 2-14

2.7 Intended Use of this EIR................................................................................................ 2-15

2.8 Plan Implementation .................................................................................................... 2-15

2.9 Required Approvals....................................................................................................... 2-16 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ii
3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 EIR Baseline..................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Agricultural Resources................................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.1-7

4.1.3 Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 4.1-8

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.1-13

4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.2-12

4.2.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 4.2-18

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.2-35

4.3 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.3-13

4.3.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 4.3-21

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.3-39

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources....................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.4-4

4.4.3 Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 4.4-9

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.4-19

4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.5-3

4.5.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 4.5-10

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.5-16

4.6 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.6-13

4.6.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 4.6-15

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.6-35 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report iii

4.7 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.7-6

4.7.3 Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 4.7-9

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.7-19

4.8 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.8-6

4.8.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 4.8-12

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 4.8-21

4.9 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Energy............................................................................................................... 4.9-2

4.9.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 4.9-3

4.9.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................... 4.9-9

4.9.5 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................... 4.9-18

4.9.6 Mineral Resources.......................................................................................... 4.9-20

4.9.7 Population and Housing ................................................................................. 4.9-21

4.9.8 Public Services and Recreation....................................................................... 4.9-22

4.9.9 Wildfire........................................................................................................... 4.9-26 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Population and Economic Growth ...................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth......................................................................... 5-3

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects.................................................................................. 5-3

5.2.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................... 5-4 6 Alternatives................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process......................................................... 6-1

6.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.............................................................................. 6-3

6.2.1 Description .......................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative ............................................................................... 6-6

6.3.1 Description .......................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3.2 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................... 6-7

6.4 Alternative 3: Greater Annexation Alternative............................................................. 6-10

6.4.1 Description ........................................................................................................ 6-10

6.4.2 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................. 6-10

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-14 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
iv
7 References and Preparers........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers............................................................................................................ 7-10 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts .........................................................................................................................ES-5 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response................................................................................ 1-4 Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Plan Land Uses Components Summary................................... 2-14 Table 4.1-1 Summary of Important Farmland in the Plan Area and Annexation Area ............... 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2 Farmland Conversion in Santa Barbara County........................................................ 4.1-6 Table 4.2-1 Climatic Conditions in Santa Maria........................................................................... 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in Santa Barbara County .......................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Data.......................................................................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-5 CalEEMod Land Use Assumptions.......................................................................... 4.2-18 Table 4.2-6 Plan 2045 VMT........................................................................................................ 4.2-19 Table 4.2-7 Estimated Operational Emissions........................................................................... 4.2-26 Table 4.2-8 Plan Consistency with the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS ................................................... 4.2-32 Table 4.2-9 Operational GHG Emissions.................................................................................... 4.2-34 Table 4.6-1 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels.............................................................................. 4.6-1 Table 4.6-2 Sound Terminology................................................................................................... 4.6-3 Table 4.6-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Along Roadway Segments........................................... 4.6-5 Table 4.6-4 City of Santa Maria Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................................... 4.6-14 Table 4.6-5 Range of Intensities – Ambient Base Noise Level (dBA Leq).................................. 4.6-14 Table 4.6-6 Vibration-Related Building Damage Thresholds..................................................... 4.6-16 Table 4.6-7 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment.................................................. 4.6-18 Table 4.6-8 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes and Noise Levels........................................... 4.6-22 Table 4.6-9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................ 4.6-32 Table 4.7-1 Current Circulation Element Roadway Classification ............................................... 4.7-3 Table 4.7-2 VMT Impact Thresholds.......................................................................................... 4.7-10 Table 4.7-3 Per Household and Per Employee Vehicle Miles Traveled..................................... 4.7-14 Table 4.7-4 Vehicle Miles Traveled, Reduction from Existing ................................................... 4.7-15 Table 4.8-1 Projected Water Supply and Demand in Acre-Feet.................................................. 4.8-2 Table 6-1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................. 6-15 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report v
Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process.................................................................................. 1-10 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Plan Area Location........................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use Designations within the City of Santa Maria................................. 2-10 Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Designations............................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Annexation Area.......................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-6 Proposed Noise Contours........................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 4.1-1 Important Farmland in the Plan Area....................................................................... 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 Williamson Act Lands in the Plan Area..................................................................... 4.1-4 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities in the Plan Area ............................................................... 4.3-2 Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands Within the Plan Area ................................................................................ 4.3-6 Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat Within the Plan Area...................................................................... 4.3-14 Figure 4.3-4 Wildlife Connectivity Within the Plan Area............................................................ 4.3-15 Figure 4.5-1 Flood Hazards in Santa Maria................................................................................... 4.5-4 Figure 4.6-1 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses/Receptors in Santa Maria............................................ 4.6-10 Figure 4.6-2 Santa Maria Airport Noise Contours ...................................................................... 4.6-11 Figure 4.6-3 Existing Traffic Noise Contours............................................................................... 4.6-12 Figure 4.6-4 Future 2050 Roadway Vehicle Noise Contours...................................................... 4.6-21 Figure 4.7-1 Current Circulation Element Roadway Functional Classification ............................. 4.7-4 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B CalEEMod Outputs
Appendix C Potential to Occur Table
Appendix D Traffic Noise Modeling Data
Appendix E WSC Technical Memorandum
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
vi
This page intentionally left blank.

Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed City of Santa Maria (City) 2045 General Plan Update, hereafter referred to as the “plan.” This executive summary summarizes the characteristics of the plan, EIR alternatives, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of the plan.

Project Synopsis
Lead Agency Contact Person
Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the plan. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Chapter 2, Project Description.

The plan is an update to the City’s current General Plan, which includes the following chapters: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Safety Element, Health and Environmental Justice Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, Noise Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, Recreation and Parks Element, and Economic Development Element. The plan establishes the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2045. The plan will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2045 General Plan Update, together with the already adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, will help the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It will also set the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the city.

Project Objectives
The2045 General Plan Update presents a vision for the future of the City and a set of objectives for how the City would achieve that vision. This vision and its objectives capture the City’s key aspirations for the future. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives for the plan, are as follows:
 Agricultural Identity. Continue to support the agricultural industry and its workforce. Balance the protection of prime agricultural land with the development necessary to support continued population growth and the diversification of the local economy.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-2
 Culture, History, and Art. Celebrate and share Santa Maria’s multicultural heritage and contemporary diversity. Preserve historic resources, foster the arts, maintain a strong sense of community through cultural festivals, and invite visitors to enjoy the richness of local expression and resources.
 Community Design. Create public spaces that reflect the community identity, foster civic pride, and invite community members to gather, both informally and for events. Design streets, buildings, and landscaping that reflect the community’s history, culture, and natural environment. Use lighting, street trees, benches, and other amenities to make sidewalks and public spaces safe and welcoming, with a focus on the Downtown and along the Main and Broadway corridors.
 Community Health. Grow and expand physical and mental healthcare services to meet the needs of all residents. Improve community health by addressing the environmental justice priorities of disadvantaged communities, including seniors, low-income households, linguistically isolated families, the homeless, and youth, who comprise 35 percent of residents.

Minimize residents’ potential for exposure to noise, pesticides, and industrial pollution. Foster healthy lifestyles by expanding safe and attractive options for physical activity and by expanding healthy food access.
 Natural Environment and Resilience. Conserve water resources in the city and support efforts to maintain the Santa Maria River. Expand opportunities to enjoy the area’s natural resources and the region’s beauty. Safeguard the community from natural hazards, including those exacerbated by climate change.
 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.
 Resilient Economy. Cultivate a diverse and resilient economy in which local businesses and families thrive and job growth keeps apace with housing development. Grow the existing economic base in agriculture, retail, healthcare, and business services, and expand into new industries. Ensure access to high quality education that is aligned with local industries and entrepreneurship.
 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.  Transportation Innovations. Develop a balanced, equitable, affordable, and reliable transportation network where pedestrians, cyclists, trucks, cars, rail, and transit can safely and efficiently navigate to destinations within Santa Maria. Focus on maintaining existing roadways, expanding walking and biking options, and reducing congestion and maintenance costs.

Transform corridors and streets from points of conflict among people, cyclists, cars, and trucks into places that bring neighborhoods and families together. Prepare for and expand regional connections with enhanced bus, rail, and air service. Prepare for technological advances like autonomous vehicles and remote work, and take advantage of opportunities and incentives to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-3
 Infrastructure, Utilities, Facilities, and Services. Provide residents and businesses with equitable access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure and utilities, including water, wastewater, flood control, gas, phone, cable, and broadband internet. Deliver high-quality services and facilities for all community members, including expedient emergency response, accessible health care, high-quality education and career training, and convenient and equitable access to well-maintained parks and recreational facilities.  Governance and Engagement. Continue to conduct and increase meaningful and inclusive civic engagement that empowers a diversity of perspectives in public decision-making. Provide residents and businesses with high-quality, equitable, and accessible customer service, including City communications and events in multiple languages and interpretation services. Partner with community organizations and institutions to build trust and increase participation, including among youth, who will be the City leaders in 2045.

Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the plan. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.  Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
 Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative
 Alternative 3: Greater Annexation Alternative
Refer to Chapter 6, Alternatives, for the complete EIR alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the plan. Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR circulated by the City from February 15, 2025 through March 17, 2025 and input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City on February 27, 2025 are summarized in Chapter 1, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
There are no CEQA-related issues to be resolved at this time.

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Impacts related to Aesthetics, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, and Wildfire were found to be less than significant. Discussion of these impacts is included in Chapter

4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of the EIR.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-4
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required) associated with implementation of the proposed project. Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the proposed plan is approved pursuant to Section15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.  Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG-1. Land use changes in the annexation area have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for agriculture. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or fully mitigate for the conversion of Farmland or agriculturally zoned lands. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Impact AG-2. The 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production, nor result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest uses. There would be no impact.

None required No impact
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact AQGHG-1. The 2045 General Plan Update would result in new emissions that may exceed the 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County. As a result, the plan would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Impact AQGHG-2. The 2045 General Plan Update could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of all criteria pollutants for which the plan region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation. The City shall require applicants for future discretionary development projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update to prepare a project-specific air quality analysis in accordance with SBCAPCD Environmental Review Guidelines. The analysis shall quantify construction and operational emissions and compare estimated emissions to the SBCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. If the analysis determines that emissions would exceed any of the applicable thresholds, the project applicant shall implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below the thresholds. All mitigation measures shall be documented and verified by the lead agency prior to project approval or issuance of grading/building permits.

Significant and
unavoidable
Impact AQGHG-3. Construction activities for projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3, This impact would be less than significant.

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 Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-6
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
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 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-by-project 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.).

Impact AQGHG-4. Future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people or expose future residents to odors that would produce a public nuisance or hazard. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact AQGHG-5. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update could have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species, either directly or as a result of habitat modification.

Implementation of federal, State, and local regulations and policies, as well as Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k) would ensure that impacts from development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update on candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species would be less than significant. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

BIO-1(a) Biological Resources Screening and Assessment. For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City Staff, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies.

If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures BIO-1[b] through BIO-1[k)]) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.

Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
BIO-1(b) Special-status Plant Species Surveys. For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.

If special-status plants are not found during special-status plant surveys, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2B plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys, the Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c) and BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.

BIO-1(c) Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation. If federally-listed and/or state-listed individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1[b]) and would be directly impacted by development, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm. Prior to initiation of construction activities the project proponent shall submit a site plan depicting the location(s) of special-status plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and approval.

If special-status plants can be avoided, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.

Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
BIO-1(d) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If federally- and/or statelisted plants, non-listed special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, or waters of the US and/or State cannot be avoided and will be impacted by development facilitated by the plan, the City shall require mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1 per acre of impact (and 1:1 per tree), to be determined in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable, for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City for review and approval. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components.

1. Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).

2. Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).

3. Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).

4. Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).

5. Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).

6. Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).

7. Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.

8. An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.

9. Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact

10. Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).

11. All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.

If a federally and/or state-listed plant species has the potential be impacted, an HMMP shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.

Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, documenting compliance with the HMMP and achievement of success criteria.

BIO-1(e) Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys. For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that suitable habitat may be present for federal- or state-listed, candidate, or proposed species, the City shall require protocol habitat assessments/surveys be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits. If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the project applicant shall be required to complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.)
BIO-1(f) Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization. For development facilitated by the plan where potential impacts to aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species are identified by the projectspecific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), the following measures shall be applied.

1. Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance.

Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.

Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact

2. All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31, if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and may be subject to regulatory agency approval.

3. All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.

4. No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.

5. If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.

6. For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWSapproved biologist. This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of three feet above grade and two feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than five feet.

The applicant shall inspect the fence weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.

7. All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.

8. No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.

9. At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.

10. All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.

11. Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Santa Barbara County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.

12. Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]). The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation. Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction.

BIO-1(g) Worker Environmental Awareness Program. For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels and prior to construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the City shall require the project proponent to arrange Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel to attend, conducted by a City-approved biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status resources that may occur Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
in the construction area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction.

All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP training and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.

BIO-1(h) Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization. For all development facilitated by the plan in undeveloped areas and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, a preconstruction clearance survey for Northern California legless lizard shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The survey shall cover the entire disturbance footprint within suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible, and should identify all special-status wildlife species observed on the project site. During the preconstruction survey the qualified biologist shall inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other suitable refuge. If Northern California legless lizards are identified, individuals shall be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable cover with loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the project site, as accessible. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, for review and approval.

BIO-1(i) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal. For all development facilitated by the plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.

If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
 When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
 Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
 Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
 If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following:
 If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure.
 If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (April 15 to August 31).
 Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two.
 Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required.  If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site.

The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.

BIO-1(j) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization. For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, the City shall require that all construction activities (including equipment staging, grading, and construction) shall be avoided during the monarch butterfly overwintering season between October 15 through March 15, if practicable. In the event construction activities cannot be avoided during the overwintering season, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for roosting monarch butterflies within seven days prior to initiation of construction activities to determine their presence/absence.

If no monarch butterflies are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary. In the event construction pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if construction is planned to restart during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October 15 through March 15), the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a new survey in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
If construction activities occur during the overwintering season and monarch butterflies are present, the qualified biologist shall establish a protective buffer, ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the roosting site in which monarch butterflies are aggregating. The buffer shall be delineated on site by the biologist with flagging or staking visible by construction personnel. The construction contractor shall ensure no construction occurs within the protective buffer, including staging of equipment or stopping or idling in the buffer, during the overwintering season. In the event construction activities, or other use of equipment, is needed to work within the buffer, the qualified biologist shall be present on site to monitor construction activities and determine if the work is disturbing the aggregated butterflies. If the biologist determines the work is disturbing the butterflies, the biologist shall have the authority to stop work within the protective buffer at any time. In addition, due to the regular movement of the butterflies and locations of the aggregations, the biologist shall have the discretion to adjust the protective buffers, as necessary.

BIO-1(k) Pre- Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification. For all development facilitated by the plan, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors.

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the Santa Maria region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest.

Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.

Impact BIO-2. Wetlands within the Plan Area may be affected by Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update.

Development projects would be subject to adopted City
regulations to minimize impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, Santa Maria Municipal Code, proposed policies in the 2045 General Plan Update, and
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) would ensure
potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) (listed above) are required. Less than significant after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact BIO-3. Due to the existing level of development, there are no essential wildlife connectivity areas within the plan area. With adherence to the proposed policies of the 2045 General Plan Update and compliance with the Santa Maria Municipal Code, implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the plan area, or on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.

None required Less than significant
Impact BIO-4. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be required to adhere to the proposed policies of the 2045 General Plan Update and Santa Maria Municipal Code requirements related to protection of trees and biological resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact BIO-5. Implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

No impact would occur.

None required No impact
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan has the potential to adversely affect previously unidentified historic-period resources. Implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies, State and federal regulations, and the Santa Maria Municipal Code would minimize adverse impacts on
historical resources. With mitigation, impacts to historic-period resources would be less than significant.

CUL-1 Historical Built Environment. If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that propose to significantly alter or demolish any historic-age features (i.e., structures determined to be over 450 years of age based on available City records, such as permitting records) shall be required to submit a historical resources evaluation prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The report shall address areas containing buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 450 years of age or older and are proposed to be altered or demolished as a part of the proposed project.

The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The historical resources evaluation report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be completed Less than significant
after mitigation
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). Applicants shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

Impact CUL-2. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update has the potential to disturb or damage archaeological resources. Implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies, State and federal regulations, and the Santa Maria Municipal Code would minimize adverse impacts to
archaeological resources. With mitigation, impacts to
archaeological resources would be less than significant.

CUL-2(a) Archaeological Resources Assessment. If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that involve ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading) shall be required to submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects which include development in archaeologically sensitive areas, as designated by the City, to locate any surface cultural materials.

If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist.

Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.

CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discoveries. For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall be required to retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve grounddisturbing activities within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource.

If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility.

If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts, may be determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.

CUL-2(c) Workers Environmental Awareness Program. For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall ensure a City-approved archaeologist provides a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers.

The WEAP shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered.

Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact CUL-3. Ground disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update could result in disturbance of human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.8 would ensure this potential impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact CUL-4. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update has the potential to disturb or damage tribal cultural resources. Implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies, State and federal regulations, and the Santa Maria Municipal Code would minimize adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. With mitigation, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

CUL-4(a) Workers Environmental Awareness Program. For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to invite a City-approved archaeologist to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The City would also invite consulting Tribe(s) to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP training shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP would emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and would discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with local tribal values.

CUL-4(b) Tribal Cultural Monitoring. For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to retain a tribal monitor to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities that will occur within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource.

Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-22
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would result in construction and operational activities which may contribute to soil erosion and degraded water quality.

Development facilitated by the plan would be required to adhere to existing NPDES permits and Municipal Code requirements which would minimize the potential for development to degrade water quality. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact HYD-2. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would increase the amount of impervious surface area and increase groundwater demand in Santa Maria. Compliance with the Central Coast RWQCB, Municipal Code, and 2045
General Plan Update policies would ensure the proposed Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact HYD-3. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would potentially alter the existing drainage pattern on individual project sites throughout the city. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be required to adhere to existing NPDES Permit and Municipal Code
requirements which would ensure development would not
substantially alter existing drainage patterns. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact HYD-4. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update may occur in flood hazard areas. Compliance with applicable municipal code requirements and proposed Safety Element policies would ensure development within areas subject to inundation would be sited, designed, and constructed as to not exacerbate risks from release of pollutants from inundation. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-23
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact HYD-5. There is no sustainable groundwater management plans for the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin; however, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be subject to the Basin Plan. Future development facilitated by the plan would not conflict with the Basin Plan as it would be required to adhere to federal, State, and local regulations to minimize water quality impacts in compliance with the Basin Plan. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would result in construction noise that may impact nearby noise-sensitive land uses. The plan would introduce new noise sources and contribute to an increase in long-term operational noise levels within the city limit as well as the annexation area. Implementation of required noise-reduction mitigation, as well as policies and actions in the plan, would minimize disturbance to noise-sensitive land uses. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or fully mitigate for the increase in construction and traffic noise in the plan area. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

NOI-1 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Noise. The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible measures as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions.  Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors.
 Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors.
 Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.

Significant and
unavoidable
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-24
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
 Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible.
 Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.
 Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater). Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.

Impact NOI-2. Construction activity from buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update would generate groundborne vibration, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Implementation of required mitigation, as well as policies and actions in the plan, would ensure vibration levels would not exceed applicable thresholds for building damage. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

NOI-2 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Vibration. The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible buffers for construction equipment as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction vibration analysis and identify the following buffer distances during demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions.

To reduce potential construction vibration impacts, the City of Santa Maria shall require the following:

Less than significant
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-25
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the following construction activities: 1) within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources; 2) within 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); 3) use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical resources or 25 feet of any other structure; or 4) use of a dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or 15 feet of any other structure. The noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed the City’s architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources,

0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure the FTA’s vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Impact NOI-3. Buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update could expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive noise levels from airport noise. Implementation of policies and actions in the plan would ensure this impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRA-1. The 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS, the Sant Maria Active
Transportation Plan, or any other applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy relevant to the transportation system. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-26
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact TRA-2. The future (2045) citywide rates of VMT with the 2045 General Plan Update would not meet the 17% VMT
reduction target required to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3(b). There are no feasible General Plan policies or mitigation measures that could reduce citywide rates of VMT below the VMT reduction target. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Impact TRA-3. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would comply with State, Santa Maria Fire Department, and City requirements related to transportation design safety and emergency access. With adherence to these requirements, the 2045 General Plan Update would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or result in inadequate emergency access, and this impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would increase demand for additional utility
infrastructure which may require relocation or construction of utility facilities or services to serve plan buildout beyond existing conditions, specifically within the annexation area. However, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be constructed consistent with applicable City code, buildings standards, and engineering standards. Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact UTIL-2. The overall growth anticipated by the 2045 General Plan Update would generate additional water demand in Santa Maria that could exceed projected water supplies during some Multiple Dry-Years. With the implementation of existing policies and programs, this impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Impact UTIL-3. The 2045 General Plan Update would not
generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. New development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with applicable solid waste reduction statutes and regulations. This impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than significant
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential environmental effects of the proposed City of Santa Maria (City) 2045 General Plan Update (“plan”). The environmental review process for the plan, and legal basis for preparing an EIR, are described below.

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background

1.1.1 Overview of the Plan
State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires that each city and county adopt a comprehensive general plan. Elements of the City’s existing General Plan have been updated between 1991 and 2023. The proposed 2045 General Plan Update is a comprehensive effort to update the existing General Plan and responds to current local and regional conditions, as well as changes in State law that may not have been in effect when the General Plan was written. The proposed 2045 General Plan Update has been organized into the following elements: Land Use; Circulation; Safety; Health and Environmental Justice; Conservation and Open Space, Noise, Public Facilities and Services; Recreation and Parks; Economic Development; and Housing Element. The Housing Element was adopted in December 2023. Together, these elements cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law.

The General Plan defines the policy framework by which the City’s physical and economic resources are to be managed and used over the next 20 years. City decision-makers will use the General Plan as a blueprint for:
 Choices about the use of land
 Protection of environmental resources
 Conservation and development of housing
 Provision of supporting infrastructure and public and human services  Protection of people and property from natural and man-made hazards Through the General Plan, the City informs its stakeholders (residents, property owners, businesses, developers, etc.) of its goals, policies, and standards, and thereby communicates expectations of the public and private sectors for meeting community objectives.

Since the plan serves as a constitution for future development in Santa Maria, any future decisions by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the adopted General Plan.

An action, program, or project would be considered consistent with the General Plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan or not obstruct their attainment.

The plan contains goals, policies, and implementation programs to implement the City’s overarching objectives. Goals are statements that provide direction and state the desired end condition. Policies establish basic courses of action to achieve these goals, and directly guide the response of elected and appointed officials to development proposals and related community actions. Implementation programs are specific actions, procedures, standards or techniques that the City must take to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-2

1.1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to:

Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

This EIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs are by necessity more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR provides the City (as Lead Agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and provides the City with greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a comprehensive basis. Agencies generally prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. By its nature, a Program EIR considers the broad effects associated with implementing a program (such as a General Plan or Specific Plan) and does not, and is not intended to, examine the specific environmental effects associated with specific projects that may be accommodated by the provisions of General or Specific Plans.

Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine what, if any, additional CEQA documentation needs to be prepared. If the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documentation may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects not contemplated or not within the scope of the Program EIR, the Lead Agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a plan level EIR. In this case, the Program EIR serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b) encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:
 Provision of a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR.
 Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis.  Avoidance of continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues.  Consideration of broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them.  Reduction of paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).

As a wide-ranging environmental document, the Program EIR uses expansive thresholds as compared to the project-level thresholds that might be used for an EIR on a specific development Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-3
project. It should not be assumed that impacts determined not to be significant at a program level would not be significant at a project level. In other words, determination that implementation of the plan as a program would not have a significant environmental effect does not necessarily mean that an individual project would not have significant effects based on project-level CEQA thresholds, even if the project is consistent with the plan.

This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from implementation of the plan and provides appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or plan alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts.

Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the City of Santa Maria, which is the Lead Agency, to use when considering approval and implementation of the plan.

This EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables intelligent consideration of the environmental consequences of the plan. This EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts could be reduced below applicable thresholds of significance, whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific alternatives to the plan. In a practical sense, this EIR functions as a tool for fact-finding, allowing concerned citizens and City staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and plan impacts through a process of full disclosure.

1.2 Scope and Content
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was circulated to potentially interested parties on February 15, 2025. The NOP, included in Appendix A, indicated that all issues on the City’s environmental checklist would be discussed in the EIR. These include:
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
This EIR evaluates potential impacts in each of these areas. Impacts regarding the CEQA topics of Aesthetics, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Wildfire were determined to not be significant and are analyzed in Section 4.10 of this EIR.

The focus of this EIR is to:
 Review and evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the growth and development envisioned in the plan
 Identify feasible mitigation measures that may reduce or eliminate potentially significant effects associated with the plan
 Disclose any potential growth-inducing and/or cumulative impacts associated with the plan  Examine a reasonable range of alternative growth scenarios (including growth according to the existing General Plan, reduced growth, and alternative locations within the City for growth) that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the plan, while eliminating and/or reducing some or all of its potentially significant adverse environmental effects City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-4
The City staff circulated a NOP of this EIR from February 15, 2025 through March 17, 2025 and received seven written responses. The responses, included in Appendix A, are addressed, as appropriate, in the analysis contained in the various sections of Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. The City staff also conducted a scoping meeting on February 27, 2025 with three members of the public in attendance. Few comments were made during the meeting, with most focusing on the proposed annexation area. One attendee inquired about the proposed plan's intentionss for Mahoney Ranch. Staff clarified that the plan does not propose changes to Mahoney Ranch.

However, concerns were noted regarding potential future development in the area, particularly due to the presence of California tiger salamander (CTS) and other sensitive species. No specific questions were raised regarding the EIR itself. Table 1-1 shows a summary of the written comments.

The NOP and written comments are included in Appendix A.

Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR Agency Comments
Santa Barbara
County Flood
Control & Water
Conservation
District
Recommends all development of one acre or greater adhere to the City of Santa Maria and County of Santa Barbara Flood Control District’s Standard Conditions of Project Plan Approval.

Section 4.5, Hydrology and
Water Quality
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
Requests the EIR include a discussion pertaining to the direct and indirect biological impacts creation of trails and trail management would have on habitats and special status species.

Section 4.3, Biological
Resources
Requests that the EIR analyze impacts to local wildlife movement.

Requests that the EIR provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about the effects the proposed plan would have on the environment
Executive Summary
Requests the EIR include a complete discussion of the purpose and need for, and description of the proposed plan.

Chapter 2, Project
Description
Requests the EIR include an alternative analysis that would reduce biological resources impacts
Chapter 6, Alternatives
Requests that the EIR include an adequate biological resource baseline assessment
Section 4.3, Biological
Resources
Requests that the EIR provide a thorough discussion of direct and indirect impacts expected to affect biological resources with specific measures to offset such impacts .

Recommends the EIR evaluate the plan’s potential cumulative impacts on biological resources
Recommends specific mitigation to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds as a result of plan implementation
Recommends the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources in the EIR Recommends the use of compensatory mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts to sensitive and special status plants, animals, and habitats.

Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-5
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR For proposed mitigation lands, CDFW recommends the use of measures to protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity.

Should the plan result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that the plan proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to plan implementation.

Expresses that CDFW does not support the translocation and transplantation as a primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to endangered, rare, or threatened plants and animals.

Requires that a Scientific Collecting Permit be obtained if there is a plan to capture and relocate wildlife
Requires that the plan applicant provide written notification to CDFW for any activities that would occur in streams, rivers, or lakes that would divert or obstruct the natural flow, change the bed, channel, or bank.

Strongly discourages development in or conversion of wetlands Recommends the use of a native plant palette
Requests that any special status species and natural communities detected during plan surveys be reported through the California Natural Diversity Database
Santa Barbara
County Planning
and Development
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to the establishment of a greenbelt and urban development buffer policy to preserve prime agricultural land
Section 4.1, Agricultural
Resources
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to future specific plans
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to LAFCO’s policies encouraging conservation of prime agricultural lands Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to the premature intrusion of urbanization into a predominantly agricultural or rural area.

Requests the EIR analyze indirect impacts to county
unincorporated areas including County roadways and any
necessary roadway improvements related to the proposed plan.

Section 4.7, Transportation
Requests that the EIR analyze the changes in land use patterns that could result from the 2045 General Plan Update and evaluate the consistency of those changes with adopted state, regional, and local plans and regulations.

Section 4.9, Effects Found
Not to be Significant
Requests that the EIR describe potential impacts related to energy usage and conservation, as well as potential
inconsistencies with relevant energy reduction and sustainability plans and policies, that could occur from future development enabled under the 2045 General Plan Update
Section 4.9, Effects Found
Not to be Significant
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-6
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR Requests that the EIR evaluate (an) alternative(s) with a proposal that does not include annexation; a proposal that does not include new development on prime agricultural land; and a proposed that provides opportunities for housing development and growth through land use changes and increased densities of existing land within urban boundaries
Chapter 6, Alternatives
California
Department of
Conservation
Requests that the EIR discuss the loss or conversion of agricultural land and include the type, amount, and location of farmland conversion; impacts on current and future agricultural operations; cumulative impacts on agricultural land;
implementation of any City or County Agricultural Mitigation Plans, Programs, or Policies; proposed mitigation measures; and the plan’s compatibility with lands within an agricultural preserve and/or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract
Section 4.1, Agricultural
Resources
Requests that the EIR discuss the compatibility of the plan with the contract and local Wiliamson Act program requirements Recommends that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land and provides mitigation measure examples
Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution
Control District
Requests that the EIR analyze the plan’s consistency with the District’s Ozone Plan
Section 4.2, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Requests that the EIR should present significance thresholds for ozone precursor emissions (reactive organic compounds [ROC], and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]) and particulate matter and determine whether the proposed plan will produce emissions in excess of the thresholds.

Requests that the EIR include a description and quantification of potential air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the proposed plan. The analysis should consider the fact that multiple construction projects could occur
simultaneously in any specific portion of the Plan area and provides examples of mitigation measures.

Requests that the EIR examine whether any of the land use designation and zoning changes associated with the proposed plan will result in air quality impacts to sensitive land uses such as residential, childcare facilities, schools, or senior living communities and provides examples of mitigation measures.

Recommends that sensitive land uses, such as residential, should not be sited within 500 feet of the highway. If, after
consideration of the health concerns and other alternatives, sensitive uses are still planned within 500 feet of a freeway or a high traffic roadway, future development projects should be required to adopt design features to minimize exposure to roadway-related pollutants and mitigate potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

This comment is about the
2045 General Plan Update
and not the environmental
review process.

Requests the EIR include a discussion of how materials will be removed in compliance with District Rule 1001 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – Asbestos.

Section 4.2, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-7
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR Requests that the EIR include a quantification of GHG emissions from all plan sources (direct and indirect), present significance thresholds, and make a determination regarding the significance of impacts. Climate change impacts be mitigated to the extent reasonably possible, regardless of whether they are determined to be significant.

Native American
Heritage
Commission
Recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed plan as early as possible to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources
Section 4.4, Cultural and
Tribal Cultural Resources
Individual Commenters
Laurie Temura Provided comments and edits on the project description Chapter 2, Project Description
Source: Appendix A
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.

1.3 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The City of Santa Maria is the lead agency under CEQA for this EIR because it has primary discretionary authority to determine whether or how to approve the plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 defines responsible agencies as other public agencies that are responsible for carrying out/implementing a specific component of a plan or for approving a plan that implements the goals and policies of a General Plan. There are no responsible agencies for the plan. Although not responsible agencies under CEQA, several other agencies have review authority over aspects of the plan or approval authority over plans that could potentially be implemented in accordance with various objectives and policies included in the plan. These agencies and their roles are listed below.  The Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has responsibility for approving the annexations to the City that might occur over the life of the plan.  The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has responsibility for approving future improvements to the U.S. Highway 101 and State Route Highway 135.  The CDFW has responsibility for issuing take permits and streambed alteration agreements for any projects with the potential to affect plant or animal species listed by the State of California as rare, threatened, or endangered or that would disturb waters of the State.  Any other public agencies which may own land within City boundaries.

Trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have a legal authority over approving or carrying out the plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 designates four agencies as trustee agencies: CDFW with regards to fish and wildlife, native plants designated as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; the State Lands Commission, with regard to state-owned “sovereign” lands, such as the beds of navigable waters City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-8
and State school lands; the California Department of Parks and Recreation, with regard to units of the State park system; and the University of California, with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System. The CDFW, due to the potential for rare or endangered species, is the only trustee agency for the plan.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development has authority over the City’s Housing Element. The Housing Element has undergone separate CEQA review and for that reason is not part of the plan being evaluated in this EIR. The Housing Element and Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration were adopted on December 5, 2023.

1.4 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process required under CEQA is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps appear in sequential order.

Notice of Preparation Distributed. Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to "responsible," "trustee," and involved federal agencies; to the State Clearinghouse, if one or more state agencies is a responsible or trustee agency; and to parties previously requesting notice in writing. The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. A scoping meeting to solicit public input on the issues to be assessed in the EIR is not required but may be conducted by the lead agency. The NOP public comment period for the plan was from February 15 2025 to March 17, 2025 and a scoping meeting was held on February 27, 2025. Public comments were received in response to the NOP and scoping process.

Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) irreversible changes.

Public Notice and Review. A lead agency must prepare a Public Notice of Availability of an EIR.

The Notice must be placed in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and sent to anyone requesting it. Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the plan site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, and adjacent cities and counties. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days, unless a shorter period is approved by the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091). Distribution of the Draft EIR may be required through the State Clearinghouse. This EIR will be circulated for a 45-day public review and will be sent to the State Clearinghouse.

Notice of Completion. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse as soon as it completes a Draft EIR.

Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) any revisions to the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-9
Certification of Final EIR. The lead agency shall certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a plan.

Lead Agency Plan Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a plan because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a plan to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve a plan despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted.

Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the plan identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that: a) the plan has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the plan 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 plan alternatives infeasible. If an agency approves a plan with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that set forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision.

Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 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 plan approval to mitigate significant effects.

Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a plan for which an EIR is prepared. A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice.

Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA challenges.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-10
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Plan Description
The plan analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the City of Santa Maria (City) 2045 General Plan Update, hereafter referred to as the “plan.” This chapter of the EIR describes the key characteristics of the plan, including the plan proponent/lead agency, the geographic extent of the plan, plan objectives, required approvals, and the development forecasted by the plan.

2.1 Plan Purpose
The plan is an update to the City’s current General Plan, which includes the following chapters: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Safety Element, Health and Environmental Justice Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, Noise Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, Recreation and Parks Element, and Economic Development Element. The plan establishes the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2045. The plan will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2045 General Plan Update, together with the already adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, will help the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It will also set the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the city.

2.2 Plan Proponent/Lead Agency
The City of Santa Maria is both the plan proponent and the lead agency for the proposed plan. The City’s Community Development Department (located at 110 South Pine Street, Suite 101, Santa Maria, California 93458) prepared this EIR with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Raimi + Associates.

2.3 Plan Area Location and Environmental Setting

2.3.1 Regional Location
The City of Santa Maria is located in northern Santa Barbara County, surrounded by the hills of the Santa Maria River Valley (see Figure 2-1). The plan area involves all land within the Santa Maria Sphere of Influence1 (SOI) and includes the annexation of areas east of the city limits (see Figure 2-2). The City of Santa Maria is generally bound by the Santa Maria River to the north, agricultural lands to the east and west, and the unincorporated town of Orcutt to the south. 1 The term “sphere of influence” applies to the area designated by the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the probable, future physical boundary or service area of the city. Overall, planning decisions made for the city are assumed to have a bearing on growth and development in these unincorporated adjacent areas. Areas not included as part of the annexation for the 2045 General Plan will continue to be deferred to the County land use designations and regulations in the SOI. Any development or change that happens in the SOI during the lifetime of the General Plan will occur under the jurisdiction of the County. Therefore, this EIR does not evaluate impacts resulting from future growth within the SOI, outside of the proposed annexation, as part of the proposed plan.

However, where relevant, this EIR does evaluate potential impacts resulting from future growth within the city limits to lands within the SOI. The SOI is also included in the cumulative setting for this EIR.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 Plan Area Location
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-4
U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) forms the eastern edge of the city. A linear portion of Santa Maria is also located to the west east of U.S. 101. This portion of the city extends south from Prell Road then extends east along an internal farm road. Santa Maria is located approximately 25 miles south of San Luis Obispo, 50 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, 250 miles south of San Francisco and 170 miles north of Los Angeles.

Principal regional transportation facilities serving Santa Maria are U.S. 101, State Route 135 (SR 135), State Route 166 (SR 166), and the Santa Maria Valley Airport. Regional transit is provided by Santa Maria Regional Transit, Clean Air Express, and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority. Regional rail is provided by Amtrak.

2.3.2 Local Setting
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 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.

2.3.3 Existing Plan Area Characteristics
The plan area covers approximately 15,058 acres and 4,500 acres within the SOI.. Approximately 110,608 people live within the plan area as of January 2024, resulting in population density of approximately 640 people per square mile. There are 31,412 residential units within the plan area as of 2024 (California Department of Finance 2024).

The annexation area evaluated in the plan (discussed in detail in Section 2.6.3) covers 985 acres east of the City of Santa Maria’s limits.

2.4 Regulatory Setting
State law (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4) requires each municipality to adopt and periodically update its General Plan and requires that a General Plan include the following mandatory subject areas, or “elements”: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. Municipalities may also prepare optional elements that can be organized or combined at the municipality’s discretion.

The plan has been organized into the following elements: Land Use; Circulation; Safety, Health and Environmental Justice; Conservation and Open Space; Noise; Public Facilities and Services; Recreation and Parks Element; and Economic Development. Together with the already adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, these elements cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law. The City of Santa Maria City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element on Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5
December 5, 2023. The plan may require additional updates to the adopted Housing Element, although such updates are anticipated to be for consistency with the plan.

Under State law a property’s zoning is required to be consistent with its General Plan land use designation (Government Code Section 65860). Section 65860(c) of the Government Code requires that when a General Plan is amended or updated in a way that makes the Zoning Ordinance inconsistent with the General Plan, “the zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended.”

2.5 Plan Objectives
The plan will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development, represents the community’s view of its future, and contains the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. The plan will provide a contemporary plan that will guide Santa Maria though the next 20 years. The primary objective of this plan is to update the existing Santa Maria General Plan in order for it to be compliant with State law.

The plan would implement the following vision to guide development.

Vision. Santa Maria in 2045 is a community where families can establish and maintain multigenerational roots. It is close-knit, culturally diverse, and economically inclusive. This is possible, in part, because Santa Maria offers affordable, safe, attractive, and healthy homes and neighborhoods for all residents. This is also possible because of the availability of high-quality education, jobs, and economic opportunity. Building from a strong foundation in the agricultural, retail, healthcare, and business services industries, Santa Maria has continued to diversify by expanding the training and skills of residents and by adapting to new technologies and broader economic trends. People are proud of their history and heritage. This is reflected in the diverse, well-preserved historical resources and the attractive, inviting streets and public gathering places. Museums, art venues, a strong civic sector, and the many welcoming community events and celebrations are all evidence of a vibrant local culture. Residents have convenient access on foot and by car, bus, and bicycle to jobs, schools, community amenities like parks and sports fields, and the region’s natural environment.

Public services are reliable, inclusive, and efficient, and the community is well-served by equitable, modern, and sustainable infrastructure, facilities, and utilities.

The City identifies the following 11 guiding principles, which also serve as the proposed plan objectives for the purposes of complying with CEQA.
 Agricultural Identity. Continue to support the agricultural industry and its workforce. Balance the protection of prime agricultural land with the development necessary to support continued population growth and the diversification of the local economy.  Culture, History, and Art. Celebrate and share Santa Maria’s multicultural heritage and contemporary diversity. Preserve historic resources, foster the arts, maintain a strong sense of community through cultural festivals, and invite visitors to enjoy the richness of local expression and resources.
 Community Design. Create public spaces that reflect the community identity, foster civic pride, and invite community members to gather, both informally and for events. Design streets, buildings, and landscaping that reflect the community’s history, culture, and natural environment. Use lighting, street trees, benches, and other amenities to make sidewalks and City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-6
public spaces safe and welcoming, with a focus on the Downtown and along the Main and Broadway corridors.
 Community Health. Grow and expand physical and mental healthcare services to meet the needs of all residents. Improve community health by addressing the environmental justice priorities of disadvantaged communities, including seniors, low-income households, linguistically isolated families, the homeless, and youth, who comprise 35 percent of residents.

Minimize residents’ potential for exposure to noise, pesticides, and industrial pollution. Foster healthy lifestyles by expanding safe and attractive options for physical activity and by expanding healthy food access.
 Natural Environment and Resilience. Conserve water resources in the city and support efforts to maintain the Santa Maria River. Expand opportunities to enjoy the area’s natural resources and the region’s beauty. Safeguard the community from natural hazards, including those exacerbated by climate change.
 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.
 Resilient Economy. Cultivate a diverse and resilient economy in which local businesses and families thrive and job growth keeps apace with housing development. Grow the existing economic base in agriculture, retail, healthcare, and business services, and expand into new industries. Ensure access to high quality education that is aligned with local industries and entrepreneurship.
 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.  Transportation Innovations. Develop a balanced, equitable, affordable, and reliable transportation network where pedestrians, cyclists, trucks, cars, rail, and transit can safely and efficiently navigate to destinations within Santa Maria. Focus on maintaining existing roadways, expanding walking and biking options, and reducing congestion and maintenance costs.

Transform corridors and streets from points of conflict among people, cyclists, cars, and trucks into places that bring neighborhoods and families together. Prepare for and expand regional connections with enhanced bus, rail, and air service. Prepare for technological advances like autonomous vehicles and remote work, and take advantage of opportunities and incentives to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  Infrastructure, Utilities, Facilities, and Services. Provide residents and businesses with equitable access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure and utilities, including water, wastewater, flood control, gas, phone, cable, and broadband internet. Deliver high-quality services and facilities for all community members, including expedient emergency response, accessible health care, high-quality education and career training, and convenient and equitable access to well-maintained parks and recreational facilities.

Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7
 Governance and Engagement. Continue to conduct and increase meaningful and inclusive civic engagement that empowers a diversity of perspectives in public decision-making. Provide residents and businesses with high-quality, equitable, and accessible customer service, including City communications and events in multiple languages and interpretation services. Partner with community organizations and institutions to build trust and increase participation, including among youth, who will be the City leaders in 2045.

2.6 Plan Characteristics

2.6.1 2045 General Plan Update Organization
The elements included in the plan are further described in this section.  Conservation and Open Space Element. This element outlines the development, management, and preservation of natural, tribal, cultural, and historic resources within the plan area. Goals, policies, and actions within this element address climate change adaptation and resilience in relation to natural resources, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, urban forestry, and the use of open space for the conservation of natural, cultural, and other resources as well as for hazard mitigation.
 Safety Element. This element addresses natural and manmade safety hazards in Santa Maria, including geologic and seismic hazards, fire hazards, flooding, hazardous materials, and emergency response and establishes policies and actions to mitigate hazard impacts to people and property. The Safety Element also evaluates evacuation capacity under a range of hazard scenarios, identifies single-access neighborhoods, and establishes policies and actions to enhance evacuation capacity throughout the city, consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 747 and Senate Bill (SB) 99. In accordance with SB 379, this element also includes a climate change vulnerability assessment and measures to address climate vulnerabilities and hazard mitigation and emergency response.
 Land Use. This element designates the placement and distribution of future development to facilitate orderly growth within the city. This element establishes future land use patterns and specifies appropriate residential density and development intensity. Goals and policies serve as a guide for decision makers to direct the development of the city. Additionally, this element provides an overall design framework for the city with the goal of preserving community character and highlighting community gateways and views.  Circulation. This element provides a framework for the City’s multimodal transportation network, addressing the movement of people and goods in and around Santa Maria, while ensuring the orderly improvement of the circulation system in response to the Land Use Element. This element also establishes policies related to the electrification of vehicles and commercial enterprises promoting Mobility as a Service (MaaS), complete streets (AB 1358) and VMT (SB 743).
 Public Facilities and Services Element. This element evaluates existing and future conditions related to the provision and maintenance of public buildings and services, including parks, schools, libraries, police, fire, and water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. This element presents goals, policies, and actions related to public facilities and services in order to sustain existing households and businesses and accommodate future growth in population, employment, and development.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-8
 Recreation and Parks Element. This element inventories existing park and recreational resources throughout the city and evaluates future conditions and needs related to parks and recreation. Goals, policies, and actions within this element aim to facilitate equitable distribution of resources and investments to meet the recreational needs of all community members.
 Economic Development Element. This element includes goals, policies, and actions related to the retention and expansion of existing business sectors, as well as diversifying the economy to develop new kinds of businesses in Santa Maria.
 Noise Element. This element identifies and evaluates sources of noise and groundborne vibration and aims to minimize excessive noise exposure and noise conflicts. This element would be consistent with the Santa Maria Public Airport Master Plan and include new noise contours.  Health and Environmental Justice Element. This element identifies disadvantaged communities within the city and includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce pollution exposure, promote access to food, public facilities, and safe housing, and strengthen civic engagement in City planning and decision making.

The City recently updated its Housing Element. The Housing Element provides the City’s action plan for meeting the City’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 5,418 dwelling units for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 to 2031). The Housing Element has undergone separate CEQA review and for that reason is not part of the plan being evaluated in this EIR. The Housing Element and Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration were adopted on December 5, 2023.

2.6.2 Land Use Designations
The current Santa Maria General Plan Land Use Element establishes 30 separate land use designations to provide a mixture of land uses for the City. The existing City of Santa Maria Land Use Designations Map is shown in Figure 2-3.

The plan would change the land use designation on select parcels, some of which will resolve inconsistencies between existing uses and the General Plan land use designations. In addition, the plan includes the following land use designation changes:
 Revise the High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation to increase the maximum allowed density from 22 dwelling units/acre to 30 dwelling units/acre.  Eliminate the Medium Density Residential-10 (MDR-10) land use designation and reassign all parcels currently designated MDR-10 to MDR-12, which would have an allowed density of 12 dwelling units/acre.
 Add three new land use designations, Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Downtown Specific Plan (SP) and Planned Annexation (PA).

Land use changes for the proposed annexation areas east of the city limits (the planned annexation areas) are discussed in detail in Section 2.6.3. Figure 2-4 depicts the proposed land use designations, including the changes in land use designations compared to the current General Plan. Proposed changes from the existing General Plan land use pattern include the following:
 A parcel along North Broadway from Low Density Residential and Community Commercial to Community Facilities (CF);
 Parcels along Main Street from Community Commercial to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU));  Parcels along Broadway from Community Commercial to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU); and Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9
 Allow Low Density Residential in Area 9 along A Stret in the western portion of the city.

Changes in land use designations within the General Plan would also necessitate revisions to the following Specific Plans:
 Amend the Entrada Specific Plan to reflect the new Corridor Mixed Use land use designation.  Amend the Area 9 Specific Plan to allow low-medium density residential (LMDR) uses along A Street with a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre.

2.6.3 Annexation
The plan would include the annexation of areas east of the city limits and SOI. There are three separate areas (shown in Figure 2-5) that would be included as part of the proposed annexation (“annexation area”) that would total 985 acres and would consist of the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):
128-094-042
128-094-014
128-094-012
128-064-007
128-071-006
128-092-001
128-092-002
128-092-003
128-093-001
128-093-021
128-093-022
128-093-023
128-093-024
128-064-010
128-094-016
128-094-047
The first area proposed for annexation is generally bound by Panther Drive to the west, E. Main Street to the south, and the city landfill parcels to the north and east. The second area proposed for annexation is generally bound by S. Suey Road to the west, E. Main Street to the north, E. Jones Street to the south, and Rosemary Road to the east. The third area proposed for annexation is generally bound by E. Jones Street to the north, U.S. 101 to the west, Prell Road to the south, and the Suey Road alignment to the east. Much of the annexation area is vacant or agricultural land.

Existing zoning and land use designations within the annexation area are determined by the County of Santa Barbara and consist primarily of agricultural land use designations (Agriculture II with a minimum lot size of 100 acres [AG-II-100] and Agriculture II with a minimum lot size of 40 acres [AGII-40]). Land use changes for the annexation area would include the establishment of a new land use designation, Planned Annexation, which would allow for a mix of commercial, residential, industrial, and public land uses in annexed land outside of current city limits.

2.6.4 Noise Contour Revisions
The City of Santa Maria noise characteristics are described within the plan’s Noise Element including descriptions of common sources of noise as well as goals and policies to lessen noise for sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, medical facilities). As required pursuant to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, the Noise Element would also include a map of noise contours as depicted via lines that represent equal levels of noise exposure across the city. Noise contours information informs planning decisions, including siting of potential future sensitive land uses. A map of the plan’s noise contours is shown in Figure 2-6.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-10
Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use Designations within the City of Santa Maria Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Designations
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-12
Figure 2-5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Annexation Area
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13
Figure 2-6 Proposed Noise Contours
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-14

2.6.5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout
For reasonable analysis purposes in this EIR, the City assumes the plan’s buildout (of both residential and non-residential uses) within the city would occur by 2045. In the context of this EIR “buildout” of the plan is assumed to be a locally appropriate projection of development within the plan area based on updated land use designations and the proposed annexation rather than development of every parcel within the city. While complete buildout is not likely to occur by 2045, the buildout assumption used for this EIR represents the most conservative approach to evaluating the plan’s potential environmental effects and satisfying the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.

For the purposes of this EIR, “plan area” would refer to the City of Santa Maria, the proposed annexation area, and the Sphere of Influence.

Table 2-1 indicates the net change from 2022 conditions in Santa Maria to buildout of the plan by 2045.

Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Plan Land Uses Components Summary Existing
(2022)
Proposed
(2045)
Net Change from Existing
to Proposed
Acreage within City Limits 15,058 acres 16,043 acres 985 acres Residential Units 28,200 units 44,340 units 16,140 units Jobs 43,050 jobs 66,800 jobs 23,750 jobs
The plan would add 985 acres of land to the city limits and would provide the framework for development of up to 16,140 net new2 primary and accessory dwelling residential units, including the development of 1,300 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and an additional 23,750 jobs by buildout.

The plan would provide the framework for the development of up to 1,504 net new non-residential acres, with the following composition (numbers in parentheses indicate a reduction in acreage):
 (463) acres of commercial uses
 452 acres of mixed uses
 7 acres of Industrial/airport uses
 33 acres of public and open space
 1,012 acres of planned future development (specific plan and planned annexation areas) Currently, approximately 32 percent of the city remains undeveloped. The undeveloped areas of the city are classified as vacant (19 percent) and agricultural (13 percent). The existing General Plan indicates the remaining 9 percent is classified as industrial. Many of the vacant parcels within the city, clustered between Battles Road, Betteravia Road, and U.S. 101 are either already slated for development or are located within a Specific Plan.

Specific land use designations proposed for the plan area are designed to ensure consistency with the updated Housing Element and existing land uses, such as industrial, heavy commercial, or agricultural. These land use changes would allow for increased residential density along Main Street and Broadway, as well as on opportunity sites with a high potential for redevelopment. Areas of the 2 Net new means the change from City of Santa Maria existing (2024) development to full buildout of the proposed plan (i.e., 2045 General Plan) by 2045; this EIR analyzes the net change in terms of potential physical environmental impacts.

Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15
city with the most potential for change are concentrated in Downtown, neighborhoods in the City Core, Main Street and Broadway, Southwest Neighborhoods (northwest, west, and south of the airport), and areas proposed for annexation. The plan serves as the City’s long-term development blueprint through 2045, contains goals and policies guiding land use and infrastructure decisions through 2045, and brings the General Plan up to date in response to latest State and regional plans and regulations related to climate-related hazards,3 emergency evacuation routes and access, water supply, and mobility.

2.7 Intended Use of this EIR
This EIR provides a programmatic environmental review of implementing the plan. Subsequent activities falling under the plan will utilize this EIR to focus the environmental review of these consequent activities and to determine their effects. If a new project is proposed that is not anticipated by the plan, or that may result in project-level environmental effects not addressed in this program-level EIR, the future project would be evaluated as required under CEQA. This EIR is not intended to prohibit consideration of future projects or CEQA analysis of future projects.

2.8 Plan Implementation
Following adoption of the plan by the City Council, all subsequent activities and development within the City would be guided by the goals and policies in the plan. Therefore, the plan provides specific policy guidance for implementation of plan concepts. The City would also need to coordinate with Santa Barbara County, the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and other public agencies to implement policies that affect their respective jurisdictions or would affect the region. Implementing these policies in accordance with new development (residential, commercial, or industrial) would be subject to the City’s established review and approval processes, with final review and approval by the appropriate departmental staff, and/or the appointed and elected officials. The principal responsibilities that City officials and staff have for plan implementation are briefly summarized below:
 Updating the City of Santa Maria Zoning Ordinance to achieve consistency with the adopted plan.
 Rezoning properties, as dictated by future development proposals.  Approval of tentative maps, variances, planned development and conditional use permits, and other land use permits and entitlements.
 Approval of development agreements and issuance of related permits and approvals consistent with the plan.
 Analyzing and planning for public infrastructure such as roadway improvements, other capital improvements, and natural/capital resource preservation and/or restoration.  Conducting or considering further focused planning studies, as appropriate to future development in the city.
3 Pursuant to SB 379, which amended California Government Code Section 65302.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-16

2.9 Required Approvals
With recommendations from the City’s Planning Commission, the Santa Maria City Council would need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the plan:
 Certification of the Final EIR and adoption of required findings, including required findings under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090, 15091, and 150934
; and
 Approval and adoption of the plan.
4 Santa Barbara County LAFCO must approve the City’s annexation application, which would include certification of this Environmental Impact Report.

Environmental Setting
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This chapter provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Setting
The City of Santa Maria is located in northern Santa Barbara County, surrounded by the hills of the Santa Maria River Valley (see Figure 2-1). The plan area involves all land within the Santa Maria Sphere of Influence1 (SOI) and includes the proposed annexation of 985-acres east of the City limits.

The City of Santa Maria is generally bound by the Santa Maria River to the north, agricultural lands to the east and west, and the unincorporated town of Orcutt to the south.

U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) forms the eastern edge of the city. A linear portion of Santa Maria is also located to the east of U.S.-101. This portion of the city extends south from Prell Road then extends east along an internal farm road. Santa Maria is located approximately 25 miles south of San Luis Obispo, 50 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, 250 miles south of San Francisco and 170 miles north of Los Angeles.

Principal regional transportation facilities serving Santa Maria are U.S. 101, State Route 135 (SR 135), State Route 166 (SR 166), and the Santa Maria Valley Airport. Regional transit is provided by Clean Air Express and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority. Regional rail is provided by Amtrak.

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.

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 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. 1 The term “sphere of influence” applies to the area designated by the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the probable, future physical boundary or service area of the City. Overall, planning decisions made for the City are assumed to have a bearing on growth and development in these unincorporated adjacent areas. Areas not included as part of the annexation for the 2045 General Plan Update will continue to be deferred to the County land use designations and regulations in the SOI. Any development or change that happens in the SOI during the lifetime of the General Plan will occur under the jurisdiction of the County. Therefore, this EIR does not evaluate impacts resulting from future growth within the SOI, outside of the proposed annexation, as part of the proposed plan.

However, where relevant, this EIR does evaluate potential impacts resulting from future growth within the City limits to lands within the SOI. The SOI is also included in the cumulative setting for this EIR.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
3-2

3.2 EIR Baseline
Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “should include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” Section 15125 states that this approach “normally constitute[s] the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” This EIR evaluates impacts against existing conditions, at the time the notice of preparation was published, which was February 15, 2025. This EIR considers the potential impacts from buildout of the General Plan in 2045, compared to exiting conditions.

3.3 Cumulative Development
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows an EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

Because the project is a general plan update, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the case for an individual development project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 provides the following direction relative to cumulative impact analysis and states that the following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of environmental impacts:

A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.

By its nature, a general plan considers cumulative impacts insofar as it considers cumulative development that could occur within the plan area, which refers to the area within the City Limits and annexation areas. For example, the transportation analysis, discussed in Section 4.8 Transportation, considers the overall change in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) due to implementing several development projects that would add to the buildout associated with implementing the project. These cumulative VMT calculations are accounted for in the analyses within Sections 4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.6 Noise and 4.10 Effects Found Not to be Significant; therefore, these analyses would also be considered cumulative. Other impacts, such as geologic hazards, are site-specific impacts that are addressed on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, even when two projects occur in close proximity, their individual impacts would not necessarily compound or contribute to a greater cumulative effect. Therefore, the analysis of project impacts in this EIR also constitutes the cumulative analysis.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This Chapter discusses the possible environmental effects of the plan for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.  Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting.

The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4-2
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Agricultural Resources
This section evaluates impacts on agriculture and forestry resources associated with implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. Because this Program EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions up to 2045, this analysis relies on program-level evaluation.

4.1.1 Setting
a. California Agricultural Resources
According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California. In 2023, California’s farms and ranches received $55.4 billion in cash receipts for their output. This represents a 1.4 percent increase in cash receipts compared to 2022. California agricultural exports totaled $23.6 billion in 2022, an increase of 4.4 percent from 2021. Top commodities for export included almonds, dairy and dairy products, pistachios, walnuts, and wine (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2024).

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) develops Important Farmland Maps as part of its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and includes the following definitions for Important Farmland and other non-farmland land uses (DOC 2025a):

Prime Farmland. Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In some counties, Confined Animal Agriculture facilities are part of Farmland of Local Importance, but they are shown separately.

Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-2
Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. b. Plan Area Agricultural Resources
Table 4.1-1, below, provides the acreage of each farmland type in the plan area and annexation area. As shown therein, the plan area contains approximately 5,116 acres of Important Farmland.

Figure 4.1-1, shows the distribution of different Important Farmlands in the plan area. In addition to Important Farmland, the plan area also includes nine acres of Grazing Land which is considered Prime agricultural land by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) definition. There are no Williamson Act lands within the city limits but, as shown in Figure 4.1-2, the annexation area includes approximately 212 acres of Williamson Act lands.

It should be noted that the Williamson Act lands in the annexation area are all currently in nonrenewal, which starts a countdown to the expiration of the contract. This includes three contracts that are set to expire in January of 2026 (71AP072), 2027 (85AP008) and 2028 (70AP148).

This is typically nine years for standard Williamson Act contracts and nineteen years for Farmland Security Zone contracts, which are a stricter version of the Williamson Act contract that offer greater property tax savings and longer-term protection for farmland (DOC 2025b). During this period, the land remains subject to all the restrictions and benefits of the Williamson Act contract until it fully expires. Nonrenewal allows landowners to eventually transition their land to other uses while still adhering to the contract's terms during the countdown period. At the end of the nonrenewal process, the contract will be terminated and the land will no longer be under contract as Williamson Act land.

Table 4.1-1 Summary of Important Farmland in the Plan Area and Annexation Area Farmland Designation City Limits and SOI Annexation Areas Total Acreage Prime Farmland 691 803 1,494
Farmland of Statewide Importance 190 7 197
Unique Farmland 1,745 134 1,879
Farmland of Local Importance 9 – 9
Grazing Land 1537 – 1,537
Total 4,172 9441 5,116
1 The remaining 41 acres within the annexation area are not considered to be prime or unique farmland or farmland of local or statewide importance.

LAFCO and Farmland
In reviewing applications for proposed annexations, LAFCO is required to consider the proposals impact to agriculture, including prime agricultural land as defined in Government Code Section 56064. As described in Section 1.5 1.3, Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies, LAFCO is a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federal, State, and local agencies, including Santa Barbara LAFCO, all operate under different laws and requirements, each setting out different definitions of prime farmland. The definition of agricultural lands and prime agricultural lands differ somewhat from the DOC definitions that are typically relied upon for CEQA analysis.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-1 Important Farmland in the Plan Area
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 Williamson Act Lands in the Plan Area
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
Land that would not qualify as Prime under USDA or FMMP definitions of Prime, may qualify as Prime under the LAFCO definition. For the proposed plan, the only land that this applies to is grazing land which meets the LAFCO definition of Prime agricultural land and is considered as Prime agricultural land within this analysis. As shown on Figure 4.1-1 and in Table 4.1-1, the plan area includes approximately 1,537 acres of grazing lands.

Regional 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, which represents a 2.8 percent decrease, or $54,467,000, compared to the 2022 value of $1,930,455,000 (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.

Regional Farmland Trends
Conversion of farmland is the loss of farmlands due to development or land use changes that do not support agricultural production. The FMMP, which is updated biennially, provides land use conversion information for decision makers to use in their planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources.

According to the DOC, irrigated farmland in California showed a net decrease of 56,186 acres between 2016 and 2018, an amount substantially higher than between 2014 and 2016 (11,165 acres). Prime Farmland, the highest quality farmland, decreased by 38,683 net acres, coupled with a Farmland of Statewide Importance decrease of 30,052 net acres. Partially offsetting these losses was the addition of 12,549 net acres of irrigated crops on lesser quality soils (DOC 2019).

Irrigated land conversions due to idling are often associated with water resource limitations, market conditions, and salinity-related land idling. Land was removed from irrigated categories at a rate 19 percent lower than compared with the prior update (128,105 acres between 2014 and 2016 compared to 152,627 acres between 2016 and 2018) (DOC 2019).

Table 4.1-2 shows the number of acres of Important Farmland that have been converted in Santa Barbara County from 2016 to 2018, the most recent and granular data available. As shown, the county lost 2,712 acres of agricultural land and gained 3,789 acres, resulting in a net increase of 1,077 acres.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-6
Table 4.1-2 Farmland Conversion in Santa Barbara County Farmland
Designation
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
2016
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
2018
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
Acres Lost
(-)
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
Acres
Gained (+)
Total Acreage
Inventoried
Total Acreage
Changed
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
Net Acreage
Changed
Percent of
Inventoried
Net
Acreage
Changed
Prime Farmland 66,979 67,819 955 1,795 2,750 840 +1.2%
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
13,194 13,648 151 605 756 454 +3.4%
Unique Farmland 37,324 37,710 715 1,101 1,816 366 +1%
Farmland of Local
Importance
8,950 8,347 819 288 1,179 -603 -6.9%
Important
Farmland Subtotal
126,447 127,524 2,712 3,789 6,501 1,077 +0.8%
Source: DOC 2021
c. Forestry Resources
Forest Land, Timberland, Timber Production Zones
Forestry resources include forestland, timberland, and timberland production zones. Definitions used for forestland and timberland are those found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 12220(g) and 4789.2(g) and California Government Code (CGC) Section 51104(g). These codes define forestland, timberland, and timberland production zones as follows:

Forest Land is land that can support, under natural conditions, 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, and that allows for the preservation or management of forest-related resources such as timber, aesthetic value, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreational facilities, and other public benefits (PRC Section 12220[g]).

Timberland means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species are determined by the board on a district basis (PRC Section 4526[g]).

Timberland Production Zones or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h) (CGC Section 51104).

Within the plan area, there are no official timberland, forest land, or TPZ zoning districts or land use designations. Several locations in the plan area are covered with many trees, including scattered open spaces and parks. However, these concentrations of trees would not be considered forestland or timberland.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Various policies and regulations are enforced at the federal, state, and local level to protect agriculture, forestry, and timberland resources, as outlined below. a. Federal Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. It assures that to the extent possible federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of government and private programs and policies to protect farmland. Projects are subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency.
b. State Regulations
Farmland Conservation Program Act
The California Farmland Conservancy Program Act, also known as Senate Bill (SB) 1142, established the California Farmland Conservancy Program, which provides grants for agricultural conservation easements. An agricultural conservation easement aims to maintain agricultural land in active production by preventing development on the subject parcel and prohibiting practices that would damage or interfere with the agricultural use of the land. Because the easement is a restriction on the deed of the property, the easement remains in effect even when the land changes ownership.

While other benefits may accrue because the land is not developed (scenic and habitat values, for example), the primary use of the land is agricultural. Easements funded by the California Farmland Conservancy Program must be of a size and nature suitable for viable commercial agriculture.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The DOC prepares, updates, and maintains Important Farmland Series Maps (Maps) as part of the FMMP and as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 65560 of the Government Code, and prepares and maintains an automated map and database system to record and report changes in the use of agricultural lands every two years on even numbered calendar years. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. In preparing FMMP maps, the DOC considers all information collected or received on the amount of land converted to or from agricultural use, and between agricultural categories.

Right to Farm Act 1981
The Right to Farm Act (Civil Code Section 3482.5) is designed to protect commercial agricultural operations from nuisance complaints that may arise when an agricultural operation is conducting business in a “manner consistent with proper and accepted customs.” The code specifies that established operations that have been in business for 3 or more years that were not nuisances at the time they began shall not be considered a nuisance as a result of new land use.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-8
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, Sections 51200 et seq. of the California Government Code, commonly referred to as the “Williamson Act,” enables local governments to restrict the use of specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. Landowners enter into contracts with participating cities and counties and agree to restrict their land to agriculture or open space use for a minimum of 10 years. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market (speculative) value.
c. Local Regulations
Santa Maria Municipal Code
The Santa Maria Municipal Code includes provisions for agricultural use, specifically outlined in Chapter 12-2.04A. This chapter defines agricultural use as farming or ranching activities, which encompass the cultivation and growing of crops, as well as the raising and keeping of poultry or livestock. These regulations ensure that agricultural activities are conducted in a manner that supports the city's goals for land use and development while maintaining the integrity of agricultural lands.

City of Santa Maria Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves Santa Maria administers its Agricultural Preserve Program under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act. This program is designed to conserve agricultural and open space lands through uniform rules that govern Williamson Act contracts. The city's Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves establish the basic requirements for all contracts, ensuring long-term conservation of agricultural lands and promoting sustainable farming practices (City of Santa Maria 2025).

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
Agricultural and forestry impact assessments involved a review of data available through the Department of Conservation’s FMMP and Williamson Act Land maps. An adverse effect would occur if a proposed development would have an impact on existing, mapped agricultural or forest land.

Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources from implementation of the project would be significant if it would:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Threshold 5: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Impact AG-1 LAND USE CHANGES IN THE ANNEXATION AREA HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURE. THERE ARE NO FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD AVOID OR FULLY MITIGATE FOR THE CONVERSION OF FARMLAND OR AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LANDS. AS A RESULT, THIS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT.

As noted in Table 4.1-1, the plan area (which includes the annexation area) contains approximately 5,116 acres of Important Farmland. Important Farmland (i.e., Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) is mapped within City limits. There are nine acres of Grazing Land within the plan area which is considered Prime agricultural land by the LAFCO definition.

The plan emphasizes infill development in urbanized portions of the city. Infill development would generally limit agricultural resource impacts, since development would be located within existing urban areas. However, some future development, including development within the annexation area is anticipated in agricultural areas.

The California Department of Conservation currently lists several sites within the city as either Grazing Land, Prime Farmland, or Unique Farmland. However, these sites, shown as important farmland in Figure 4.1-3, have previously undergone environmental review for the conversion of agricultural land.

The area west of A street and north of Betteravia Road was evaluated within the Sphere of Influence Expansion Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90010930) in 1994 and the Area 9 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071018) in 2011 wherein impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be less than significant. The Environmental Impact Report for the City’s Sphere of Influence Expansion (SCH#90010930) documented the conversion of these agricultural resources to non-agricultural uses, and the City Council Resolution No. 92-136 presented a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which the Council adopted on September 15, 1994. Santa Barbara LAFCO approved annexation of the project area to Santa Maria on November 23, 2004. Furthermore, in City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-10
order to mitigate the conversion of these agricultural resources, the City adopted a “Greenbelt and Urban Buffer” resolution in 1994 (Resolution 94- 9). The Greenbelt and Urban Buffer resolution established that the City would preserve agricultural and open space areas immediately adjacent to the City’s Urban Boundary Limit. This resolution protects agricultural and open space areas adjacent to the city by prohibiting the city from expanding its Urban Boundary Limit into such areas. As such, the areas immediately adjacent to the Area 9 Specific Plan area would be preserved under this resolution. Because the impacts of the conversion of these agricultural resources on the site were previously offset by the establishment of the City’s Greenbelt and Urban Buffer, impacts were found not to be significant (City of Santa Maria 2011). As such, conversion of the area known as Area 9 would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources. Similarly, the area south of Main Street between Blosser Road and Hanson Way was evaluated within the Sphere of Influence Expansion Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90010930) in 1994. As part of the Sphere of Influence Expansion project, this area was assigned urban growth potentials as part of the West Main Specific Plan and did not include area identified for future agricultural use. Conversion of this area would not result in significant impacts as the area has been previously evaluated and slated for urban growth in previous environmental analyses.

The area east of South Blosser Road, south of West Stowell Road, and north of Battles Road was evaluated within the Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1994107909) in 2020 wherein impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be less than significant. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report determined that the Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan area has been anticipated for non-agricultural use, including residential development, since the evaluation of the City’s Sphere of Influence Boundary Amendment and Concurrent Annexation Program in 1992. As part of the Sphere of Influence Boundary Amendment and Concurrent Annexation Program, this area was assigned residential growth potentials and did not include area identified for future agricultural use. As such, conversion of this area would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources.

The area east of Blosser Road and south of Battles Road was evaluated within the Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015011029) in 2015. Impacts to agricultural resources within this Environmental Impact Report were determined to be less than significant as this area was identified an infill site located within the urbanized city, surrounded by urban development and is planned and zoned for future urban development. Prior to the preparation of the Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015011029), an Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this area indicating the site had a land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of Light Manufacturing that has since been changed to allow for retail commercial and professional office uses. As the area has been designated for development and has been previously evaluated in previous environmental documents, impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land would be less than significant.

As such, future development adjacent to agricultural land would not lead to farmland loss due to potential conflicts between existing farming operations and new urban or non-agricultural uses. The 2045 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts as it would not result in the conversion of farmland to non—agricultural uses that have not already been evaluated in previous environmental documents and would not result in conflicting uses introduced adjacent to existing farmland.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
In addition to Important Farmland, the plan area contains three properties that are under Williamson Act contracts within the central portion of the proposed annexation area. As shown in Figure 4.1-2, these lands are currently in nonrenewal, which starts a countdown to the expiration of the contract. The contracts will expire on January 1, 2026 (71AP072), January 1, 2027 (85AP008), and January 1, 2028 (70AP148). During the non-renewal period, the land remains subject to all the restrictions and benefits of the Williamson Act contract until it fully expires. At the end of the nonrenewal process, the contract will be terminated and the land will no longer be under contract as Williamson Act land. As discussed within Chapter 2, Project Description, land use changes for the annexation area would include the establishment of a new land use designation, Planned Annexation, which would allow for a mix of commercial, residential, industrial, and public land uses in annexed land outside of current city limits. This could conflict with the existing Williamson Act contracts. However, as these lands are currently within nonrenewal and are set to expire, it is anticipated that the contracts will have expired by the time of plan buildout thereby reducing the likelihood of a direct conflict at the time of buildout. Further, development facilitated by the plan that would occur within Williamson Act land would be required to undergo individual environmental review at the time a project is proposed for both the proposed project and the annexation of the area. As it is not reasonably foreseeable for new discretionary development in the annexation area to be proposed, reviewed, and approved, between the date of publication of this EIR and the expiration date of the current remaining Williamson Act contracts in the annexation area, development facilitated by the plan would not result in the conversion of Williamson Act Lands.

Impacts related to the conversion of Williamson Act lands would be less than significant.

The Conservation and Open Space Element and the Land Use Element of the plan seeks to encourage the continued operation of agricultural lands in and around Santa Maria. The goals and policies listed below from the General Plan address the preservation of agricultural lands:

Goal COS-2: Working lands. Sustainable and productive working lands support healthy local ecosystems.

Policy COS-2.1: Agricultural preservation. Collaborate with Santa Barbara County and local landowners to preserve existing agricultural uses on lands not proposed for future development, including croplands and rangelands.

Action COS-2.1.1: During review of projects that would alter or convert existing agricultural uses, balance state and regional efforts to preserve existing agricultural uses, including the Santa Barbara County Right to Farm Ordinance, clustering of urban land uses/development, and transfer of development rights —with other factors. These include providing adequate housing, achieving a jobs-housing balance, supporting economic sustainability, and advancing other City interests.

Action COS-2.1.2: To the extent feasible, support the establishment of agricultural conservation easements on land within the City’s Sphere of Influence that is zoned for agriculture and designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland by initiating discussions with property owners on eligible sites and providing education and technical assistance to interested owners.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-12
Goal LU-1: Balanced mix of uses. A balanced mix of land uses meets the present and future housing, employment, and recreation needs of the community.

Policy LU-1.2: Infill development. Prioritize the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized parcels with a focus on infill of existing residential, commercial, and industrial capacity to revitalizinge downtown and deteriorating neighborhoods, to the extent feasible. Accommodate growth while making every effort to preserve agricultural lands and open space.

Goal LU-2: Annexation as outward growth. Santa Maria expands in an orderly and efficient manner to accommodate future growth.

Policy LU-2.1: Planned Annexation aArea. Expand Sphere of Influence and annex the Planned Annexation aAreas identified on the General Plan Land Use Map to meet housing and jobs development goals.

Goal LU-9: Agricultural areas. Thriving agricultural lands generate fresh produce for the State and preserve Santa Maria’s history as a farming community.

Policy LU-9.1: Agricultural resources. Accommodate future city growth while making every feasible effort to Preserve agricultural resources in the city on land not proposed for future development, specifically those with State or local importance. Annexation into areas utilized for agriculture shall occur in an orderly and planned manner, consistent with the General Plan and LAFCO policies.

Policy LU-9.2: Agricultural land use conflicts. Support ongoing agricultural activities by discouraging land uses that conflict with adjacent farming activities.

Policy LU-9.3: Agricultural buffers. Update the Municipal Code to require buffers between new development and lands designated for active agricultural uses. Examples of buffers include but are not limited to roadways, stormwater basins, and landscaped or open space areas.

Policy LU-9.4: Agricultural land impact avoidance and minimization. Require projects adjacent to agricultural land to prevent the spread of invasive plant species during construction.

A determination of the impacts to Important Farmland, agricultural zoning and conflicts with Williamson Act contracts would be made on a case-by-case basis as individual projects are proposed. A majority of development facilitated by the plan would likely not create significant impacts, particularly for development that would be located in urbanized areas of the city. However, because implementation of the plan would allow for future conversion of Important Farmland and conflict with agricultural zoning within the annexation area, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
The 2045 General Plan Update includes policies which are intended to minimize future impacts to agricultural lands in and around Santa Maria. However, there is no set of General Plan policies or mitigation measures that could feasibly reduce the identified impact to agricultural lands in the annexation area.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
Significance After Mitigation
Policies included in the 2045 General Plan Update would reduce potential adverse impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland and Williamson Act contract lands within the annexation area to the extent feasible through preservation efforts and by requiring conservation easements.

Nonetheless, even with compliance with General Plan actions, conversion of Important Farmland and conflicts with agricultural zoning could still occur. While these policies would help reduce the extent of farmland conversion and conflicts with agricultural zoning in the annexation area to the extent feasible, it would not be guaranteed that development facilitated by the plan would avoid or fully mitigate for the conversion of Farmland and agriculturally zoned lands within the annexation area. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 3: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Threshold 4: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Impact AG-2 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR

FOREST LAND, TIMBERLAND, OR TIMBERLAND PRODUCTION, NOR RESULT IN THE LOSS OF FOREST LAND OR CONVERT FOREST LAND TO NON-FOREST USES. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

As discussed above in Section 4.1.1(b), there are no zoned TPZs or forest lands within the plan area.

Accordingly, the proposed land use pattern would not result in rezoning of any existing forest land or timberlands within the plan area. Because no forest land or timber areas are within the plan area, there would be no impact on conversion of forest land or conflicts with land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required because there would be no impact.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Regional cumulative impacts consider the Citywide impacts together with similar impacts of reasonably anticipated regional projects/programs.

The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the determination of the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection

3.3, Cumulative Development.

Since the mid-20th century, the Santa Maria region has experienced steady urban expansion resulting in Important Farmland being incrementally converted to residential, commercial, and industrial uses (DOC 2015). This trend has been especially pronounced in areas surrounding Santa City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.1-14
Maria, where population growth and housing demand have led to the conversion of prime farmland. Future development within the cumulative impact analysis area would convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and may result in conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts. In addition, future development adjacent to agricultural land has the potential to result in a loss of farmland due to land use conflicts between existing agricultural activities and new non-agricultural development, which adds to the cumulative conversion of agricultural lands, including areas designated as Important Farmland by the FMMP. Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources would be significant.

As identified in Impact AG-1, the 2045 General Plan Update would result in conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use and could conflict with agricultural zoning in the annexation area. Development facilitated by the plan could result in incompatibilities between new residences and adjacent agricultural uses resulting in the potential conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Implementation of 2045 General Plan policies would reduce the contribution of the plan to cumulative agricultural land impacts. However, these actions would not ensure that the future development facilitated by the plan in the annexation area could feasibly relocate or realign to avoid impacts, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, cumulative impacts to agricultural resources would be significant, and the 2045 General Plan Update would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on agricultural resource impacts.

Because there is no forestland within the plan area or immediately adjacent areas, future development within the cumulative impact analysis area would not convert forestland to non-forest uses and thus, would not result in conflicts forest zoning. Cumulative impacts to forestland and timber resources would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section describes current air quality conditions in and around the City of Santa Maria and evaluates the possible impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could result from implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. Information included in this section is based on the policies from the plan, Environmental Background Report (Santa Maria 2020) and the Santa Maria Municipal Code (Santa Maria 2024), as well as transportation VMT data produced by GHD in June 2025.

4.2.1 Setting
a. Air Quality Setting
Climate and Topography
The plan area is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) that includes all of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The climate of the Santa Barbara County area and all of the SCCAB is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the location of the semi-permanent high-pressure cell in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. The Mediterranean climate of the region produces moderate average temperatures, although slightly more extreme temperatures can be reached in the winter and summer. The proximity of the Pacific Ocean tends to moderate temperature near the coast while the steep mountain ranges produce a significant “orographic effect.” Orographic effect occurs when storms approaching the county from the Pacific Ocean are forced upward against the mountains resulting in increased precipitation release with topographic elevation. The orographic effect, in conjunction with steep, short watersheds occasionally result in flash flooding along the county's south coast.

Santa Barbara County is situated among a series of transverse mountain ranges, the only ranges within the continental United States to trend in an east-westerly direction. Most of the County's developed areas are located along the coastal plain and in the inter-mountain valleys, such as Santa Maria which is located within the Santa Maria Valley. The warmest months of the year in Santa Maria are July through October, with an average maximum temperature of 74 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest months of the year are December and January with an average minimum temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate is semi-arid, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Table 4.2-1 summarizes local climatic conditions.

Table 4.2-1 Climatic Conditions in Santa Maria
Average annual rainfall 13.9 inches
Average maximum temperature (annual) 74 °F
Average minimum temperature (annual) 39 °F
Warmest month(s) July through September
Coolest month(s) December & January
Source: U.S. Climate Data 2023.

Note: Data is based on historic climate in Santa Maria.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-2
Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants, which are discussed in more detail under Section 4.2.2, Regulatory Setting. Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere and include carbon monoxide (CO), VOC (volatile organic gases)/reactive organic gases (ROG),1 nitric oxide (NOX), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Secondary criteria pollutants are created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone (O3), and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). The characteristics, sources and effects of criteria pollutants are discussed in the following subsections.

Ozone
O3 is a highly oxidative unstable gas produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and ROG. ROG is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with specific exclusions), and NOX is composed of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG is formed during the combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. As a highly reactive molecule, O3 readily combines with many different atmosphere components. Consequently, high O3 levels tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX levels are present to sustain the O3 formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, O3 levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, O3 is considered a regional pollutant. In addition, because O3 requires sunlight to form, it mainly occurs in concentrations considered serious between April and October. People most at risk from O3 include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. In addition, people with reduced intake of certain nutrients, such as vitamins C and E, are at greater risk from O3 exposure. Depending on the level of exposure, O3 can cause coughing and a sore or scratch throat; make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously and cause pain when taking a deep breath; inflame and damage the airways; make the lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis; and increase the frequency of asthma attacks (USEPA 2025a).

Carbon Monoxide
CO is a localized pollutant found in high concentrations only near its source. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic's incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes.

When CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability to get oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where they need more oxygen than usual. As a result, they are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this EIR.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain, also known as angina (USEPA 2025b).

Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a by-product of coal, oil, gas or diesel fuel combustion. The primary sources are motor vehicles and industrial boilers, and furnaces. The principal form of NOx produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2, commonly called NOx. NO2 is a reactive, oxidizing gas and an acute irritant capable of damaging cell linings in the respiratory tract. Breathing air with a high concentration of NO2 can irritate airways in the human respiratory system. Such exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing), hospital admissions, and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma and children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2 (USEPA 2025c). NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of O3/smog and acid rain.

Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is included in a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore and burning fuels with a high sulfur content by locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 (USEPA 2025d).

Particulate Matter
Suspended atmospheric PM10 (particular matter with diameter of 10 microns or less) and PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 microns or less) are comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mist. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are emitted into the atmosphere as by-products of coal, gas, or diesel fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads. The atmosphere, through chemical reactions, can form particulate matter. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 can be very different. PM10 is generally associated with dust mobilized by wind and vehicles. In contrast, PM2.5 is generally associated with combustion processes and formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM10 can cause increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death, reduced visibility, surface soiling. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hours duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases (CARB 2025a).

Lead
Pb is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. The major sources of Pb emissions historically have been mobile and industrial. However, due to the USEPA ’s regulatory efforts to remove Pb from gasoline, atmospheric Pb concentrations have declined City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-4
substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in Pb emissions occurred before 1990 due to the removal of Pb from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Pb emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries at least partly due to national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (USEPA 2014). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of Pb emissions. The highest Pb level in the air is generally found near Pb smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and Pb-acid battery manufacturers. Pb can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and cardiovascular system depending on exposure. Pb exposure also affects the oxygencarrying capacity of the blood. The Pb effects most likely encountered in current populations are neurological in children. Infants and young children are susceptible to Pb exposures, contributing to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (USEPA 2025e).

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances and a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs (CARB 2025a).

TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2025f).

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The federal and State governments have authority under the federal and State CAA to regulate emissions of airborne pollutants and have established AAQS for the protection of public health. An air quality standard is defined as “the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harming public health” (CARB 2025b) The USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the State equivalent in California. Federal and State AAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, sulfur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. AAQS are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under the age of 14, the elderly (over the age of 65), persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases (USEPA 2025g). In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
chloride (CARB 2025c). Table 4.2-2 lists the current NAAQS as well as the CAAQS for regulated pollutants.

Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Ozone 1-Hour – 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual − −
24-Hour − 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual − 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM25 Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 −
Lead 30-Day Average − 1.5 µg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 −
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: USEPA 2025h
USEPA and CARB designate air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the AAQS standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas that are unclassified have insufficient monitoring data for a specific pollutant to determine attainment or nonattainment status, although unclassified areas are typically treated as attainment for a specific pollutant. Since attainment and nonattainment designation is pollutant-specific, an area may be classified as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment for another. Similarly, because the State and federal standards differ, an area could be classified as attainment for the federal standards of a pollutant and as nonattainment for the State standards of the same pollutant. The NAAQS (other than O3, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The CAAQS are not to be exceeded during a three-year period. The attainment status for Santa Barbara County is included in Table 4.2-3.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-6
Table 4.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in Santa Barbara County Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 Nonattainment-Transitional Unclassified/Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
O3 = Ozone; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.

Sources: SBCAPCD 2025
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) monitors criteria pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, develops strategies to meet the standards. As shown in Table 4.2-3, Santa Barbara County is in non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone State standards and PM10 State standard (SBAPCD 2025).

More than 250 air quality monitoring stations operated by federal, State, and local agencies comprise the California Ambient Air Monitoring Network, including ten stations in Santa Barbara County (CARB 2025d). There are two existing monitoring stations in Santa Maria: Orcutt Road and 906 South Broadway. The Orcutt Road Station collects data on ozone, PM2.5, PM10; and the 906 South Broadway Station collects data on ozone, PM2.5, PM10, and NO2. NO2 data from the Santa Maria 906 South Broadway Station is only available for 2021, therefore, NO2 data from the LompocSouth H Street Station located approximately 27 miles south of the city is used as data from the Lompoc – South H Street Station is available through 2023. The data collected at these stations are generally considered to be representative of the baseline air quality experienced in Santa Maria.

Table 4.2-4 summarizes the annual air quality data for the local airshed. As shown, PM10 measurements exceeded the State standards once in 2021, three times in 2022, and ten times in 2023. No other State or federal standards were exceeded at these monitoring stations. Since CO and SO2 are in attainment with the SCCAB region, these pollutants are not monitored at the nearest air monitoring stations and ambient air quality is not reported for these pollutants.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
Table 4.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 0.0751 0.0572 0.0602
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.0501 0.0542 0.0532
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Highest 1 Hour 251 243 253
Number of days above CAAQS (>0.180 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days above NAAQS (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 2 56.11 75.62 114.52 Number of days above State standard (>50 µg/m3) 2 1 3 10 Number of days above federal standard (>150 µg/m3)2 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 3 12.41 13.52 26.92 Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 3 0 0 0 Notes: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 Data from the Santa Maria Station at 906 South Broadway 2 Data from the Santa Maria Station at Orcutt Road
3 Data from the Lompoc-South H Street Station
Source: CARB 2025d
Sensitive Receptors
Federal and State AAQS have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; the elderly over 65; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.

Sensitive receptor locations are therefore typically associated with residences, schools, and hospitals. The Dignity Health – Marian Regional Medical Center is located at 1400 East Church Street in Santa Maria. Additional sensitive receptors in the plan area include residences and K-12 schools located throughout the city. Schools in Santa Maria are identified in Section 4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant.
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Setting
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. Gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs, because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

Different GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years).

Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-8
(CO2e), which is the amount of GHG multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of 1. By contrast, methane has a 100-year GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).2
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with leakage from natural gas pipelines and processes, agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (USEPA 2025h).

Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred, because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates from historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record, which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The IPCC expressed in their Sixth Assessment Report that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities (IPCC 2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land and has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021).

GHGs in the atmosphere regulate the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be approximately 33 degrees Celsius cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2013). However, since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by 47 percent, 156 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (IPCC 2021). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere far beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.
2 The IPCC’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by CARB uses a GWP of 25 for CH4, consistent with the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
GHG Emissions Inventory
Global GHG Emissions Inventory
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 47,000 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (U.S. EPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 MMT of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed three percent, and two percent was due to international transportation sources. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change and forestry. (U.S. EPA 2021b).

United States GHG Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019; since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of

0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease in carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (U.S. EPA 2021c).

California GHG Emissions Inventory
Based on the CARB California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2022, California produced 371.1 MMT of CO2e in 2022, which is 9.3 MMT of CO2e lower than 2021 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 39 percent of the State of California’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 23 percent of the State’s GHG emissions while electric power accounts for approximately 16 percent (CARB 2025e). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, the State of California (State) achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2021). The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2017).

Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.13°C (0.23°F) less than the record set in 2016 and it is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the last year's (2021) value, which now ranks as the seventh City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-10
highest (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2023). Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature obtained from station observations jointly indicate that Land Surface Air Temperature and sea surface temperatures have increased.

Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years.

California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (California Natural Resource Agency 2019) includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the State and regionally specific climate change case studies. However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and Statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that climate change could generate in California.

Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by

2.4 to 3.2°C in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C in the next century. Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the State has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (California Natural Resource Agency 2019). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the State. With increasing temperatures, shifting weather patterns, longer dry seasons, and more dry fuel loads, the frequency of large wildfires and area burned is expected to increase (California Natural Resources Agency 2021).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

Year-to-year variability in Statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). For example, the winter of 2022-2023 had severe storms and flooding from increased rainfall and snowmelt, which the California Department of Water Resources identified as “the latest example that California’s climate is becoming more extreme” (California Department of Wate Resources 2023). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western United States, including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts. The Sierra snowpack provides most of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack. Projections indicate that the average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (California Natural Resource Agency 2019).

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (California Natural Resource Agency 2019). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2022, observed by satellites, is approximately

3.4 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2023). Global mean sea levels in 2013 were about 0.23 meter higher than those of 1880 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures.

The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise ranging between 0.25 to 1.01 meters by 2100 with the sea level ranges dependent on a low, intermediate, or high GHG emissions scenario (IPCC 2021). A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (California Natural Resource Agency 2019).

Furthermore, increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

Agriculture
California has an over $51 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2022). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (California Natural Resource Agency 2019). Temperature increases could also change the time of year that certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).

Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions due to higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; California Natural Resource Agency 2019).

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-12

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Supreme Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.

Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards (CAFE)
Under the CAA, corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards have been set for passenger cars and light trucks. The State of California has traditionally had a waiver to set its own more stringent fuel efficiency standards. In 2020, the NHTSA and USEPA implemented the Safer Affordable FuelEfficient Vehicles Rule (SAFE Rule). Part One of the SAFE Rule revoked a waiver granted by USEPA to the State of California to enforce more stringent emission standards for motor vehicles those required by USEPA for the explicit purpose of GHG reduction. However, in 2021 the federal government formally proposed to roll back portions of the SAFE Rule, restoring California’s right to enforce more stringent fuel efficiency standards (NHTSA 2022). In December 2021, the NHTSA finalized rules to repeal the SAFE I Rule established in 2020. However, the status of California’s fuel efficiency standard waivers are again in question as of the writing of this document.

Construction Equipment Fuel-Efficiency Standard
USEPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000. A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements, which are contained in 40 CFR Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068 (originally adopted in 69 Federal Register 38958 [June 29, 2004] and most recently updated in 2014 [79 Federal Register 46356]). Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code Section 39000 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the State has developed the CAAQS, which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS.

Table 4.2-2 lists the current State standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.

California Air Toxics Program
A TAC is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs may result in long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure.

In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807: Health and Safety Code Sections 39650–39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase.

The second step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process.

The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk.

Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly Bill) was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of significant risks, and reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. The Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill (SB) 25 (Chapter 731, Escutia, Statutes of 1999), focuses on children's exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air quality standards from a children's health perspective, evaluate the Statewide air quality monitoring network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect children's health.

State Implementation Plan
The SIP is a collection of documents that set forth the State’s strategies for achieving the AAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, and permitting), district rules, State regulations, and federal controls. CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under State law. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 52.220.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-14
The 2022 Santa Barbara County Ozone Plan is the SIP for Santa Barbara County. The 2022 Ozone Plan (2022 Plan) accommodates growth by projecting the growth in emissions based on different indicators. For example, population forecasts adopted by SCCAB are used to forecast populationrelated emissions. Through the planning process, emissions growth is offset by basin-wide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.

In addition, the following California Code of Regulations would be applicable to the 2045 General Plan:
 Engine Idling. In accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location.  Emission Standards. In accordance with Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.

California Advanced Clean Cars Program
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and costeffective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allows California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the U.S. EPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules have been fully implemented, and new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 32, and Assembly Bill 1279)
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.

Senate Bill (SB) 32, signed into law on September 8, 2016, extends AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below).

The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.

Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of 6 MT CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).

AB 1279, “The California Climate Crisis Act,” was passed on September 16, 2022, and declares the State would achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. In addition, the bill states that the State would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update has been prepared to assess the progress towards the 2030 target as well as to outline a plan to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s longterm climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022).

Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) adopted the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS to demonstrate that the SBCAG region would achieve emissions reductions consistent with targets set forth by SB 375.

Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statues of 2016) requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
 Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-16
SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the former Governor Brown issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 (Senate Bill 1020) Adopted on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 creates clean electricity targets for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of retail sale electricity by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, 100 percent by 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by 2035. This bill shall not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and shall not allow resource shuffling.

California Building Standards Code
The CEC first adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards is referred to as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code and was developed to help the State achieve its GHG reduction goals under HSC Division 25.5 (e.g., AB 32) by codifying standards for reducing building-related energy, water, and resource demand, which in turn reduces GHG emissions from energy, water, and resource demand.

The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute for or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Title 24 Standards, which go into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards continue to improve upon the previous (2019) Title 24 standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential buildings (CEC 2022a). The 2022 Title 24 Standards “build on California’s technology innovations, encouraging energy efficient approaches to encourage building decarbonization, emphasizing in particular on heat pumps for space heating and water heating. This set of Energy Codes also extends the benefits of photovoltaic and battery storage systems and other demand flexible technology to work in combinations with heat pumps to enable California buildings to be responsive to climate change.

This Energy code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. This update provides crucial steps in the state’s progress toward 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by midcentury” (CEC 2022b). The 2022 Energy Code is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by 10 MMT of CO2e over the next 30 years and result in approximately 1.5 billion dollars in consumer savings (CEC 2022c). Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process. c. Local Regulations
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
As the local air quality management agency, the SBCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as nonattainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts described in Section 2.1, Environmental and Regulatory Setting, are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition.

Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (2002) was the first plan prepared by SBCAPCD and established specific planning requirements to maintain the State one-hour O3 standard. In 2006, CARB revised the CAAQS and added an 8-hour average to the O3 standard. Both components of the standard must now be met before CARB can designate an area to be in attainment. The most recent 2022 Ozone Plan was adopted by SBCAPCD in December 2022 and was the seventh update to the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The 2022 Ozone Plan addresses the State O3 standards only because SBCAPCD is designated “attainment” for the federal 8-hour O3 standards, including the most recent standard of 0.070 ppm promulgated by the United States EPA in 2015.

To minimize potential impacts from the plan emissions, the SBCAPCD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of Projects. Rules and regulations relevant to the plan include the following:
 Rule 345 (Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities). This rule establishes fugitive dust control requirements for any activity associated with construction or demolition of a structure or structures.
 Rule 323.1 (Architectural Coatings). This rule establishes volatile organic content limits for architectural coatings that are manufactured, blended, repackaged, supplied, sold, or offered for sale within the SBCAPCD. Rule 323.1 limits the volatile organic content to 50 grams per liter for flat coatings and 100 grams per liter for nonflat coatings and traffic marking coatings.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-18
 Rule 329 (Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials). This rule establishes ROC content limits pertaining to the manufacture, application, and sale of cutback and emulsified asphalt materials for paving, construction, and maintenance of streets, highways, parking lots, and driveways.

SBCAG Connected 2050 RTP/SCS
The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS was adopted by Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) in 2021 and updated in April 2025, and it builds upon the goals, policies, and forecasts of preceding plans. The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS demonstrates that the SBCAG region would achieve emissions reductions consistent with targets set forth by SB 375. GHG reductions achieved through the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS would result in corresponding reductions in energy consumption in the region. The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS sets forth goals and objectives related to mixed‐use development and the jobs‐housing balance by allotting more housing to the southern portion of Santa Barbara County, as well as incorporating region-specific analysis of environmental justice indicators. Policies in the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS applicable to the plan include meeting SB 375 requirements, promoting renewable energy, and promoting alternative transportation (SBCAG 2025).

City of Santa Maria
The City of Santa Maria has not adopted a qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). Therefore, this analysis does not utilize the tiering and streamlining provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(2) in evaluating the significance of the plan’s impacts related to GHG emissions.

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Air Quality Methodology
The assessment of potential environmental impacts related to air quality is based on a review of regional air quality plans and data within the plan. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a citywide assessment of the plan. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the land use assumptions used in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which represent the net new uses from the 2045 General Plan Update as detailed under Section 2.6.5 of the Project Description:

Table 4.2-5 CalEEMod Land Use Assumptions
Land Use Categories New Uses Reduction in Uses
Residential +16,140 units –
Mixed-Use (assumed to be office uses in CalEEMod) +452 ac – Industrial +7 ac –
Recreational Parks +33 ac –
Planned Future Development (assumed to be office uses in CalEEMod) +1,021 1,012 ac – Commercial – -463 ac
N/A = not applicable; ac = acres
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
Construction Emissions
Construction-related emissions are temporary but may still cause adverse air quality impacts.

Construction of development associated with the 2045 General Plan Update would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances. At this time, there is not sufficient detail to allow project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Rather, construction impacts for the 2045 General Plan Update are discussed qualitatively.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. CalEEMod uses default and project-specific information, including the plan’s land uses, square footage for different uses (e.g., multi-family residence, hotel, etc.), and location, to estimate the plan’s operational emissions. Land use assumptions are included in Table 4.2-5.

Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile source emissions, energy emissions, and area source emissions. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption for space and water heating. The energy use estimates account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). This is a conservative assumption since the energy use estimates do not account for potential energy efficiency measures required by the subsequent Title 24 update in 2022, as well as anticipated future updates. Mobile source emissions were estimated using vehicle activity data presented in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic.

Table 4.2-6 shows the 2045 General Plan Update’s VMT per capita for 2045. Annual VMT were estimated by multiplying the daily VMT per household by the projected increase of 16,140 residential units and by 365 days per year. Similarly, daily VMT per employee was multiplied by the projected increase of 23,750 employees and by 365 days to estimate annual employee-related VMT.

This approach represents a conservative assumption, as it applies daily VMT rates uniformly across all days of the year, without accounting for reduced travel on weekends or holidays.

Table 4.2-6 Plan 2045 VMT
Activity VMT per Household VMT per Employee
VMT 47.6 9.8
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: Santa Maria Travel Demand Model, GHD, June 2025.

Air Quality Significance Thresholds
This analysis follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (2022a). Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, air quality impacts related to a project would be significant if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard; City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-20
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

According to the SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, a project would have a significant air quality impact on the environment if operation of the project would:
a) Emit from all project sources (both stationary and mobile) less than 240 pounds per day of ROC; b) Emit from all project sources (both stationary and mobile) less than 240 pounds per day of NOX; c) Emit from all project sources (both stationary and mobile) less than 80 pounds per day of PM10; d) Emit less than 25 pounds per day of ROC from motor vehicle trips only; e) Emit less than 25 pounds per day of NOX from motor vehicle trips only; and f) Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard (except ozone); or
g) Not exceed the public notification health risk thresholds adopted by the SBCAPCD of 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk or a Hazard Index of more than 1.0 for non-cancer risk; or
h) Be consistent with the latest adopted in federal and State air quality plans for Santa Barbara County
The SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents state that, due to the relatively low background ambient CO levels in Santa Barbara County, localized CO impacts associated with congested intersections are not expected to exceed the CO health-related air quality standards. As such, CO hotspot analyses are not required.

Plan Consistency
Consistency with land use and population forecasts in local and regional plans, including the 2022 Ozone Plan (previously known as the Clean Air Plan), is required under CEQA for all projects.

The 2022 Ozone Plan relies primarily on the land use and population projections provided by SBCAG and CARB on-road emissions forecast as a basis for vehicle emission forecasting (SBCAPCD 2022b).

The 2022 Ozone Plan uses SBCAG’s Countywide Regional Transportation Demand Model for on-road mobile source emissions estimates and SBCAG’s socio-economic projections contained in the most recent RTP/SCS to form the basis for some stationary and area source growth forecasts.

The SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents States that any general plan amendment that would provide for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted Ozone Plan is inconsistent with the Ozone Plan and may have a significant impact on air quality (SBCAPCD 2022a).

Toxic Air Contaminants
The USEPA considers those pollutants that could cause cancer risks between one in 10,000 (1.0 x 10 4
) and one in one million (1.0 x 10-6) for risk management. Proposition 65 (California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6), enacted in 1986, prohibits a person in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical that has been listed as known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
warning. For a chemical that is listed as a carcinogen, the “no significant risk” level under Proposition 65 is defined as the level that is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals (1.0 x 10-5
). The SBCAPCD recommends the use of this risk level (also reportable as 10 in one million) as the significance threshold for TACs. The SBCAPCD also recommends that the non-carcinogenic hazards of TACs should not exceed a hazard index (the summation of the hazard quotients for all chemicals to which an individual would be exposed) of 1.0 for either chronic or acute effects (SBCAPCD 2022a).

GHG Methodology
GHG emissions result from both direct and indirect sources. Direct emissions include emissions from fuel combustion in vehicles and natural gas combustion from stationary sources. Indirect sources include off-site emissions occurring as a result of electricity and water consumption and solid waste.

In addition, construction activities would result in direct and indirect emissions. Details for mobile source, energy source, and area source inputs included in the modeling of GHG emissions are provided above under Air Quality Methodology.

As discussed above, the 2045 General Plan Update is analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS.

GHG Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines States that a project may have a significant adverse impact if it would:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the proposed project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.

This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals [AEP] (2016) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.

The City of Santa Maria has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update is evaluated based on consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-22
b. Projects Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact AQGHG-1 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN NEW EMISSIONS THAT MAY EXCEED THE 2022 OZONE PLAN’S DIRECT AND INDIRECT EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE COUNTY. AS A RESULT, THE PLAN WOULD CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2022 OZONE PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

The SBCAPCD Guidelines State that a project is consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan (previously known as the Clean Air Plan) if its direct and indirect emissions have been accounted for in the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecast assumptions, and if it would incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBCAPCD during construction activities.

Emissions Forecast Assumptions
The 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County as a whole is reliant on population projections provided by the SBCAG. SBCAG generates population projections based on local General Plans. In this case, SBCAG utilized population projections contained in the existing City of Santa Maria General Plan, which are based on existing and anticipated land uses in the city.

As discussed in Section 4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant, the proposed plan would add 16,140 additional residential units leading to an increase of approximately 58,265 new residents. 3 This
estimate is based on the California Department of Finance’s population estimates, which identified the average persons per household in Santa Maria as 3.61 in 2024 (DOF 2024) and assumes full occupancy of residential units at this rate. Actual population growth may be lower. According to the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast 2050 for Santa Barbara County, the population of Santa Maria is expected to increase by 34,600 residents by 2050. The Plan’s anticipated addition of roughly 58,265 residents by the year 2045 would exceed SBCAG’s projection by roughly 23,665 residents or 31 percent. Although SBCAG would update their growth projections to be consistent with the 2045 General Plan Update during the next planning cycle, the level of population growth and associated development anticipated under the 2045 General Plan Update would substantially exceed the existing SBCAG population forecasts. In addition, as discussed below under Impact AQGHG-2, the 2045 General Plan Update would exceed SBCAPCD’s construction and operational criteria pollutant thresholds, which represents a conflict with the goals and measures outlined in the 2022 Ozone Plan. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Fugitive Dust Control Measures
Pursuant to SBCAPCD Guidelines to be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan, a project must incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBCAPCD during construction activities. The 2045 General Plan Update contains the following policy and action that would require fugitive dust control measures and the use of SBCACPD’s short-term construction emissions guidelines.
3 This calculation represents a conservative analysis in which every potential residential unit (16,140 as described in Section 2.6.5, Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout) is occupied at the full potential persons per household rate.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
Policy COS-5.3: Fugitive Dust Emissions. Mitigate air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction and demolition activities by requiring the use of best management practices consistent with SBCAPCD Guidelines regarding fugitive dust control.

Action COS 5.3.1: Utilize SBCAPCD’s short-term construction emissions guidelines to determine levels of significance for construction-related emissions.

Policies included in the 2045 General Plan Update would ensure that future development facilitated by the plan would comply with SBCAPCD’s standard fugitive dust control measures, ensuring consistency with this component of the 2022 Ozone Plan.

Mitigation Measures
The 2045 General Plan Update includes policies which are intended to achieve consistency with the 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County. However, there is no set of General Plan policies or mitigation measures that could feasibly achieve consistency with SBCAG’s population forecasts or reduce emissions in a manner that would be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County as a whole.

Significance After Mitigation
Policies included in the 2045 General Plan Update would ensure that future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would comply with SBCAPCD’s standard fugitive dust control measures. However, because the 2045 General Plan Update would substantially exceed SBCAG’s population forecasts and would result in new emissions that could exceed 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County as a whole, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQGHG-2 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ALL CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH THE PLAN REGION IS IN NONATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD. EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE AQGHG-2, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

Construction
Construction of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update may involve activities that result in air pollutant emissions. Construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROC and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-24
whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts.

SBCAPCD does not currently have quantitative thresholds of significance for plan-level construction that would apply to the 2045 General Plan Update. However, CEQA requires that the short-term impacts such as exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generation during grading be analyzed. If an individual project’s construction emissions fall below the project-level thresholds, the plan’s impacts on regional air quality would be individually and cumulatively less than significant. According to SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, it recommends quantification of construction-related emissions and suggests a 25 tons per year threshold for ROC or NOX as a guideline for determining the significance of construction impacts (SBCAPCD 2022a). This is a limit that requires offsets if the construction activity is for a project that requires SBCAPCD permits and also provides guidance for other construction projects involving standard grading and building activities. In addition, standard dust control measures must be implemented for any discretionary project involving earthmoving activities, regardless of size or duration. According to the SBCAPCD, proper implementation of these required measures reduces fugitive dust emissions to a level that is less than significant (SBCAPCD 2022a).

Construction of development envisioned under the 2045 General Plan Update would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution concentrations or air quality nuisances. To promote clean air quality to protect public health and safety and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the 2045 General Plan Update includes Policies COS-5.1 through 5.3 and associated actions which would minimize emissions of air contaminants associated with buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update. These policies are listed below:

Policy COS-5.1: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District policies. Ensure consistency between the City and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) air quality plans and regulations. Continue to enforce the standards and regulations set by the SBCAPCD.

Action COS-5.1.1: Continue to refer projects requiring an Air Pollution Control District (APCD) permit to the SBCAPCD and require ACPD permit approval.

Action COS-5.1.2: Evaluate potential impacts of proposed development on air quality during the development and environmental review process, using Air Pollution Control District (APCD) threshold standards as guidelines
Action COS-5.1.3: Ensure new development complies with the Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program (CMP), Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), Ozone Plan, and other relevant regulations during the development and environmental review process.

Policy COS-5.2: Agricultural air pollutant emissions. Reduce air pollutant emissions associated with agricultural uses.

Action COS-5.2.1: Work with agricultural operators located within City limits and in adjacent unincorporated areas to encourage the adoption of farming practices that minimize dust, consistent with the Santa Barbara County’s dust control measures, including limiting plowing, disking, mowing, and tilling when soil is dry and winds are high, and using surface coverings or cover crops to reduce wind erosion and stabilize soil.

Action COS-5.2.2: Coordinate with SBCAPCD to report illegal burnings and enforce SBCAPCD regulations pertaining to agricultural burnings.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-25
Action COS-5.2.3: Collaborate with SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner's Office to monitor pesticide residues in the air and enforce pesticide use and storage regulations.

Action COS-5.2.4: Update the Municipal Code to establish a minimum buffer requirement between agricultural uses, including agricultural supply businesses, and development based on the type of use. Sensitive land uses, including residential uses, schools, day cares, senior homes, and hospitals, shall require the largest buffer distance from agricultural and related uses.

Action COS-5.2.5: Update the Municipal Code to require the use of green walls or vegetation barriers in combination with minimum buffers to provide a physical barrier between agricultural and sensitive uses.

Policy COS-5.3: Fugitive dust emissions. Mitigate air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction and demolition activities by requiring the use of best management practices consistent with SBCAPCD Guidelines regarding fugitive dust control.

Action COS-5.3.1: Utilize SBCAPCD’s short-term construction emissions guidelines to determine levels of significance for construction-related emissions While consistency with SBCAPCD’s Guidelines through implementation of fugitive dust control measures would reduce impacts from construction emissions to less than significant for the majority of projects, specific project-level details are unknown at this level of planning and individual projects may still exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation
Reasonably expected future development from the 2045 General Plan Update would generate longterm regional air pollutant emissions, which would result from mobile sources (motor vehicle exhaust) and area sources, such as consumer products and natural gas combustion. Emissions from motor vehicle exhaust were estimated using VMT data for the 2045 General Plan Update (2045).

The impact analysis is based on net new uses within the city as detailed in Section 2, Project Description.

Operation of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). The 2045 General Plan Update would increase residential, office, industrial, and recreational land uses under 2045 buildout, and would decrease commercial uses under 2045 buildout. Operational emissions were based on the plan characteristics described in Section 2, Project Description, and the new and reduced land uses categories proposed by the plan as compared to the existing City land use designations (Table 4.2-5). In addition, VMT per capita data presented in Table 4.2-6 were used to generate estimates of annual VMT.

Table 4.2-7 shows the net difference in operational emissions by subtracting net new uses by net reduction in uses. As shown in Table 4.2-7, the net new emissions would exceed SBCAPCD thresholds for all sources and mobile sources. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-26
Table 4.2-7 Estimated Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Emissions Source ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
New Uses
Mobile 55 94 1,314 5 615 157
Area 2,491 32 3,724 <1 5 4
Energy 55 493 372 3 38 38
Total 2,601 619 5,410 8 658 199
Reduction in Uses
Mobile 4 6 84 <1 39 10
Area 639 7 877 <1 9 9
Energy 14 122 103 1 9 9
Total 657 135 1,064 1 57 28
Net New Emissions
Net New Emissions 1,944 484 4,346 7 601 171
Threshold (area + energy + mobile) 240 240 N/A N/A 80 N/A Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A
Threshold (mobile only) 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
ROC = reactive organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix B for modeling results. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

Mitigation Measures
AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation The City shall require, where it is determined as necessary, applicants for future discretionary development projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update to prepare a project-specific air quality analysis in accordance with SBCAPCD Environmental Review Guidelines. The analysis shall quantify construction and operational emissions and compare estimated emissions to the SBCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. If the analysis determines that emissions would exceed any of the applicable thresholds, the project applicant shall implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below the thresholds. All mitigation measures shall be documented and verified by the lead agency prior to project approval or issuance of grading/building permits.

Significance After Mitigation
While consistency with SBCAPCD’s Guidelines through implementation of fugitive dust control measures would reduce impacts from construction emissions to less than significant for the majority of projects, specific project-level details are unknown at this level of planning and individual projects may still exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2 would require project-specific air quality analyses and incorporation of mitigation for future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-27
However, because the nature and intensity of future projects are not known at this time, construction and operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQGHG-3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECTS LASTING LONGER THAN TWO MONTHS OR LOCATED WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS COULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. HOWEVER, WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE AQGHG-3, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Construction-related activities associated with new development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would result in DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment associated with site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, clearing), building construction, and other construction activities. DPM is identified as a TAC by CARB. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2025a) and is therefore the focus of this analysis.

Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Future construction would occur over approximately 20 years (assuming a buildout year of 2045), but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur in less than one year for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is impossible to quantify risk without identified specific project details and locations.

The extent of DPM emissions from any individual construction project depend upon the following factors: (1) the amount of disturbed soils; (2) the length of disturbance time; (3) whether existing structures are demolished; (4) whether excavation is involved; and (5) whether transporting excavated materials off site is necessary. DPM emissions would be reduced during the other phases of individual project construction because activities such as building construction and architectural coating require less diesel-fueled construction equipment.

SBCAPCD has not established plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions, and SBCAPCD CEQA guidance does not require preparation of a health risk assessment for short-term construction emissions. At this time, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update does not have sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) to allow for project-level analysis given that project-level details are not currently available for future individual development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. As a result, it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts that could occur as a result of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. In addition, SBCAPCD does not recommend project-level emissions thresholds for construction activity. Therefore, a qualitative approach to characterizing construction-related air emissions has been employed for this analysis.

According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, which could result in potentially significant health risk impacts.

SBCAPCD recommends diesel equipment meeting the CARB Tier 3 or higher emission standards, which results in substantially lower TAC emissions than older construction equipment, be used in place of older construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible (SBCAPCD 2022a). As a City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-28
result, construction projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, that have construction durations longer than two months, and are larger than single-family residences, ADUs, or duplexes could result in potentially significant health risk impacts if construction equipment does not meet CARB Tier 3 or higher for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3.

Operation
Development facilitated by the plan could accommodate a net increase of approximately 16,140 additional residential units and 23,750 new jobs in Santa Maria. CARB’s guidelines do not designate residential uses as land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions. As a result, this analysis considers quantities of hazardous TACs that could be generated by new residential uses (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) as below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update in accordance with land use and zoning regulations would not site land uses that typically generate TACs near sensitive receptors. Additionally, new commercial, retail, or industrial uses that may include a new stationary TAC source, such as an emergency generator, the new stationary source would be required to apply for a permit-to-operate from SBCAPCD. The permitting process would ensure that the potential new stationary source would not present a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update would not result in exposure of existing sensitive receptors to significant carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants and would be consistent with CARB and SBCAPCD guidelines.

To minimize health risks to sensitive receptors located near roadways, the 2045 General Plan Update includes the following policies that aim to improve air quality and minimize exposure to TAC:
 Policy COS-6.2: Vehicle emissions reduction. Reduce vehicle-generated air pollution and GHG emissions by expanding active transportation opportunities.  Policy COS-6.3: City vehicle fleet electrification. Transition the City’s vehicle fleet to electric/zero-emission vehicles.

Implementation of these policies would minimize the potential for sensitive receptors in the plan area to be exposed to significant health risks associated with roadway traffic or other operational sources of TACs that may result from new development under the 2045 General Plan Update.

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 Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-29

Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQGHG-4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD

NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS THAT COULD AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR EXPOSE FUTURE RESIDENTS TO ODORS THAT WOULD PRODUCE A PUBLIC NUISANCE OR HAZARD. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The occurrence and severity of objectionable odors depend on a number of factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the receiving location. Although objectionable odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be perceived as a nuisance, cause distress among the public, and result in citizen complaints.

The 2045 General Plan Update would facilitate the development of new housing units, which are odor-sensitive receptors, in areas with existing residential and commercial land uses. Construction activities for development forecasted in accordance with the 2045 General Plan Update may produce temporary odors. Examples of potential odors produced by construction activities include concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from construction equipment tailpipes and reactive organic gases/compounds from architectural coatings. Such odors generally disperse rapidly from Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
project applicant to the City stating that Tier 3 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.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-30
individual project sites, occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people, and would be limited to the temporary construction period.

The SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (2022) states that certain projects have the potential to cause significant odor impacts because of the nature of their operation and their location. Examples include fast food restaurants, bakeries, and coffee roasting facilities. In addition, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Although the annexation area east of the city limits would be located in proximity to agricultural operations, such operations are not typically associated with the generation of substantial or frequent odors.

Agricultural activities in the region primarily involve crop cultivation and other practices that do not constitute significant odor sources under typical operating conditions. Thus, the potential for odorrelated impacts on future development within the annexation area is considered minimal. The 2045 General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or expose future residents to odor in concentrations that would produce a public nuisance or hazard. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 5: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact AQGHG-5 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD

GENERATE GHG EMISSIONS THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONFLICT

WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

As discussed above under Section 4.2.3(a), Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the City of Santa Maria has not adopted a quantitative significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update is evaluated based on consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Operational emissions are provided for informational purposes. Construction emissions are not provided as specific individual project-level details are unknown at this level of planning.

The principal State GHG reduction plans and policies are AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 identifies a State-wide target of net-zero GHG emissions by 2045 and a goal of reducing GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

The latest iteration of the Scoping Plan is the 2022 Scoping Plan, which focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

The 2045 General Plan Update would be generally consistent with these goals since future development would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-31
Efficiency Energy Standards. Additionally, the 2045 General Plan Update includes the following goal, policies, and actions intended to reduce GHG emissions from building energy use.

Goal COS-6: Greenhouse gas emissions. The city is strives to be carbon-neutral.

Policy COS-6.1: GHG reduction strategy. Develop and implement a citywide GHG reduction and monitoring strategy.

Action COS-6.1.1: Establish City GHG emissions reduction targets that are consistent with sState-mandated targets of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Action COS-6.1.2: Develop a sustainability plan or similar document that outlines how the City will achieve its GHG reduction targets. Integrate City-led GHG reduction strategies with regional efforts.

Policy COS-6.4: Energy conservation programs. Promote energy conservation through public awareness programs.

Action COS-6.4.1: Coordinate with the Tri-County Regional Energy Network (3C-REN) to increase awareness of local incentives for improving energy efficiency for homeowners.

Action COS-6.4.2: Identify and pursue funding to create a program offering home energy audits to help property owners identify updates to increase energy efficiency and funding assistance for home retrofits.

Future development would also be served by Southern California Edison Pacific Gas and Electric or Central Coast Community Energy, both of which are required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. Furthermore, development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with the State’s recycling and composting requirements for commercial businesses under AB 341, which requires businesses generating four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week to recycle, and AB 1826, which requires businesses generating two or more cubic yards of solid waste per week to recycle organic waste. Compliance with these state laws would maximize the plan’s recycling and solid waste diversion.

Priority GHG reduction strategies outlined in the Scoping Plan include VMT reduction measures aimed at improving and increasing access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, and microtransit alternatives. The following 2045 General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions would reduce GHG emissions.

Goal COS-6: Greenhouse gas emissions. The city is strives to be carbon-neutral.

Policy COS-6.1: GHG reduction strategy. Develop and implement a citywide GHG reduction and monitoring strategy.

Action COS-6.1.1: Establish City GHG emissions reduction targets that are consistent with sState-mandated targets of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Action COS-6.1.2: Develop a sustainability plan or similar document that outlines how the City will achieve its GHG reduction targets. Integrate City-led GHG reduction strategies with regional efforts.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-32
Policy COS-6.2: Vehicle emissions reduction. Reduce vehicle-generated air pollution and GHG emissions by expanding active transportation opportunities.

Policy COS-6.3: City vehicle fleet electrification. Transition the City’s vehicle fleet to electric/zero-emission vehicles.

Action COS-6.3.1: Amend the City's Capital Improvement Plan to incorporate the replacement of high-mileage fleet vehicles with clean fuel vehicles.

Action COS-6.3.2: Pursue sState and federal grants for transitioning City vehicles to clean fuel sources and installing electric vehicle charging stations at City facilities.

Policies listed in Section 4.7, Transportation, would encourage active transportation and transit use in accordance with the 2022 Scoping Plan. However, as discussed under Impact TRA-2, the 2045 General Plan Update would not meet the 17 percent VMT reduction target set by CARB for the SBCAG region. As such, the forecasted VMT would not be consistent with climate goals established in the 2050 RTP/SCS.

As demonstrated above, the goal, policies, and actions provided in the 2045 General Plan Update to reduce GHG emissions from building use are consistent with measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan aimed at achieving the same thing. However, the 2045 General Plan Update would not reduce GHG emissions from vehicle use in a sufficiently to meet the 17 percent VMT reduction target established by CARB for the SBCAG region in the 2050 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update would conflict with the reduction of GHG emissions related to vehicle use goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

SBCAG has incorporated a sustainable community strategy into the 2050 RTP/SCS, which is designed to help the region achieve its SB 375 GHG emissions reduction target. The 2050 RTP/SCS demonstrates that the SBCAG region would achieve its regional emissions reduction targets for the 2020 and 2035 target years.

Table 4.2-8 Plan Consistency with the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS Policies Plan Consistency
Policy 1.1: Land Use
The planning, construction, and operation of
transportation facilities shall be coordinated with local land use planning and should encourage local agencies to:

1. Make land use decisions that adequately address
regional transportation issues and are consistent with
the RTP-SCS.

2. Promote better balance of jobs and housing to reduce long-distance commuting by means of traditional land
use zoning, infill development, and other,
unconventional land use tools, such as employersponsored housing programs, economic development programs, commercial growth management
ordinances, average unit size ordinances and parking
pricing policies.

3. Plan for transit-oriented development consistent with the RTP-SCS by:
a. Concentrating residences and commercial centers
in urban areas near rail stations, transit centers
and along transit development corridors.

Consistent: The 2045 General Plan Update would facilitate the development of 16,140 net new residential units in
infill and urbanized areas in proximity to services and transit which would encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of alternative transportation. The 2045 General Plan Update would also generate 23,750 net new jobs which
would improve the balance of jobs and housing and
reduce long-distance commuting.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-33
Policies Plan Consistency
b. Designing and building “complete streets” serving
all transportation modes that connect high-usage
origins and destinations.

4. Preserve open space, agricultural land and sensitive biological areas.

5. Identify, minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts and, in particular, require mitigation of traffic impacts of new land development through on-site and
related off-site improvements for all modes of
transportation, including incentives to encourage the
use of alternative transportation modes.

6. Dissuade siting of new development in high-fire risk areas by means such as ensuring insurability and
redundancy of ingress and egress.

Policy 1.2: Air Quality
Transportation planning and projects shall be designed to:

1. Lead to reductions in greenhouse gas and criteria
pollutant emissions, consistent with the air quality
goals of the region, including targets for greenhouse
gas emissions from passenger vehicles in 2020 and
2035 as required by Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).

2. Be in conformity with the Air Pollution Control District Ozone Plan and the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
as required by the federal Clean Air Act.

Inconsistent: Future development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards
and would also be served by Southern California Edison
Pacific Gas and Electric or Central Coast Community
Energy, both of which are required to increase its
renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100
targets. In addition, as discussed under Impact AQGHG-1, the 2045 General Plan Update would be consistent with
the 2022 Ozone Plan, and would adhere to SBAPCD Rules
323.1, 329, and 345. Nonetheless, since specific projectlevel information is currently unknown, there is no guarantee the 2045 General Plan Update would be
consistent with State legislation and the 2022 Scoping Plan with goals to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

Policy 1.3: Alternative Fuels and Energy
Transportation planning and projects shall:

1. Encourage the use of alternative fuels, and the
application of advanced transportation and energy
technologies to reduce vehicular emission production
and energy consumption.

2. Promote renewable energy and energy conservation,
consistent with applicable federal, State, and local
energy programs, goals, and objectives.

Consistent. The 2045 General Plan Update Policies COS6.2 through 6.4 aim to reduce vehicle-generated air pollution and GHG emissions by expanding active
transportation opportunities; transition the City’s vehicle fleet to electric or zero-emission vehicles; and promote energy conservation through public awareness programs.

Future development would also be required to comply
with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards and incorporate energy
efficient and sustainable designs and appliances.

Source: SBCAG 2025
The 2050 RTP/SCS states that one of the intents of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is “directly addressing regional jobs/housing imbalance by providing more housing on the jobs-rich South Coast and more jobs to communities in the North County” (SBCAG 2021). Improving the intra-County jobs/housing imbalance would decrease transportation demands on U.S. Highway 101, State Route 166, and State Route 1, which would reduce congestion and VMT. The plan would increase employment by adding 23,750 new jobs within the City, which would improve the City’s jobshousing ratio, reducing vehicle emissions. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update would be consistent with most of the policies in the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS, with the exception of Policy 1.2.

Overall, although the 2045 General Plan Update would be generally consistent most of the policies City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-34
from the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS, the plan would be inconsistent with Policy 1.2 from the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS and the 2022 Scoping Plan, since the plan has the potential to conflict with the State-wide target of net-zero GHG emissions by 2045. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

GHG emissions associated with the 2045 General Plan Update are shown below under Table 4.2-9 for informational purposes only. As shown in Table 4.2-9, the plan would result in approximately 271,807 MT CO2e per year.

Table 4.2-9 Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Net New Uses Operational
Mobile 83,629
Area 1,145
Energy 229,129
Water 13,486
Waste 23,447
Refrigerants 57
Total 350,894
Net Reduction in Uses Operational
Mobile 5,335
Area 296
Energy 63,577
Water 4,015
Waste 5,856
Refrigerants 8
Total 79,087
Net New Emissions 271,807
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: CalEEMod worksheets are in Appendix B.

Mitigation Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce plan area emissions of GHGs such that the plan would not potentially conflict with the State-wide target of net-zero GHG emissions by 2045.

Significance After Mitigation
No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-35

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Regional cumulative impacts consider the City-wide impacts together with similar impacts of reasonably anticipated regional projects/programs. The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the determination of the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection 3.3, Cumulative Development.

As described under Impact AQGHG-1, the SBCAPCD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on consistency with the latest adopted Ozone Plan. The population estimate under the 2045 General Plan Update is considered conservative, as it assumes full occupancy of all potential residential units at the maximum persons-per-household rate.4 Actual population growth may be lower. Nonetheless, the 2045 General Plan Update would still result in exceedance of the population forecasts for the City of Santa Maria in the 2022 Ozone Plan and would potentially exceed SBCAPCD construction and operational criteria air pollutant thresholds. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to consistency with the latest adopted Ozone Plan
As identified under Impact AQGHG-2, the 2045 General Plan Update would exceed SBCAPCD operational emissions thresholds for ROC, NOX, and PM10. Additionally, at this stage of planning, project-specific details regarding construction activity are currently unknown and could potentially exceed SBCAPCD thresholds after mitigation. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2, the 2045 General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the plan region is non-attainment.

As shown under Impact AQGHG-3, construction activity may result in a potentially significant impact related to DPM and TAC exposure within the City. Health risk impacts are localized to the immediate vicinity of DPM and TAC sources, such that people affected by construction-related TAC emissions generated at one housing site would likely not be affected by construction-related TAC emissions generated at another housing site should construction activities occur simultaneously. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of the pollutants in the region; for example, the cancer risk and non-cancer risk thresholds have been set pursuant to existing cancer risks in the area and exceeding those thresholds would be considered a cumulative impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 would reduce concentrations of DPM and TAC emissions from construction activity associated with future development under the 2045 General Plan Update.

Therefore, the plan’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts related to these pollutants would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

Cumulative projects would adversely affect sensitive receptors from odor emissions if cumulative projects were typical odor-producing land uses. Construction of cumulative projects would result in construction equipment-related odors; however, the temporary nature of construction would ensure less than significant cumulative odor impacts. In addition, the 2045 General Plan Update would not facilitate the development of odor-generating sources. Therefore, operational odor 4 This calculation represents a conservative analysis in which every potential residential unit (16,140 as described in Section 2.6.5, Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout) is occupied at the full potential persons per household rate.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.2-36
impacts would be less than significant and the 2045 General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to odors.

GHG
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Regional cumulative impacts consider the City-wide impacts together with similar impacts of reasonably anticipated regional projects/programs. The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the determination of the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection 3.3, Cumulative Development.

GHG emissions and climate change are, by definition, cumulative impacts, because impacts of climate change are experienced on a global scale regardless of the location of GHG emission sources. As discussed in Section 4.2.1b, Potential Effects of Climate Change, the adverse environmental impacts of cumulative GHG emissions, including sea level rise, increased average temperatures, more drought years, and more large forest fires, are already occurring. As a result, cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions are significant. Thus, the issue of climate change involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. As discussed under Thresholds GHG-1 and GHG-2, plan impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable since there is not guarantee the 2045 General Plan Update would be consistent with the State-wide target of net-zero GHG emissions by 2045.

Therefore, GHG impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1

4.3 Biological Resources
This section summarizes the biological resources in the plan area and analyzes the potential effects on biological resources related to implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. This section includes a brief summary of biological resources background information and a review of known biological resources as well as potential impacts to these resources as a result of implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. The background information and analysis in this section is partially based on the Environmental Background Report for the City of Santa Maria, prepared in December 2020 to support their General Plan Update.

4.3.1 Setting
This following information was obtained through a desktop literature review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Protected Resources Application; the City of Santa Maria Existing Conditions Report (2020); and Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) and CDFW vegetation datasets.
a. Land Cover and Vegetation Communities
Santa Maria has a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Plants in this climate have adapted to grow in the early spring and winter, when water is available, and become mostly dormant in the long dry summers, when water availability is limited.

The varied topography and soil types of the Santa Maria Valley have enabled a mix of native plant communities to exist in the region. Major land cover types in the Santa Maria River Valley include urbanized development, agricultural lands (which include barren land, dryland and irrigated grain crops, evergreen orchards, irrigated row and field crops, pastures, and vineyard vegetation communities), and open space (which includes annual and perennial grasslands, coast live oak woodlands, coastal scrub, eucalyptus groves, freshwater emergent wetlands, valley foothill riparian, chamise-redshank chaparral, mixed chaparral, closed-cone pine-cypress, montane riparian, and lacustrine and riverine vegetation communities). These vegetation communities were identified as occurring in the plan area by LANDFIRE’s existing vegetation dataset and CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification scheme (CWHR) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, CDFW 2025a).

Urbanized development contributes to the majority (71 percent) of the plan area, with the remaining areas consisting of agriculture (9 percent), open space (12 percent), and mixed agricultural-open space (8 percent) areas. Further descriptions of these vegetation communities are provided below and illustrated in Figure 4.3-1.

Land Cover
The plan area contains substantial urban and suburban development. There are, however, areas of relatively undisturbed natural habitats. Descriptions of the vegetation communities in the plan area are listed below, based on vegetation mapping using the LANDFIRE vegetation dataset and described using CDFW CWHR habitat descriptions. Figure 4.3-1 shows the vegetation communities and land covers within the plan area.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-2
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities in the Plan Area
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
Agricultural – Field and Row Crops
Dryland Grain Crops
Vegetation in the dryland (non-irrigated) grain and seed crops habitat includes seed producing grasses – primarily barley, cereal rye, oats, and wheat, all of which are annuals. Non-irrigated grain and seed crops are often planted in the fall, and harvested in the spring, on lands with flat to gently rolling terrain. Grain crops reduce wildlife habitat richness and diversity, as they are usually established on fertile soils, which historically supported an abundance of plants and wildlife. Many species are now controlled by fencing (e.g. deer), trapping (e.g. wild pigs), and poisoning (e.g. rodents) to prevent excessive crop losses (CDFW 2025a).

Irrigated Row, Field, and Grain Crops
Irrigated row and field crops, including seed and grain crops, are generally located on flat to gently rolling terrain; flat terrain has often been leveled to facilitate irrigation and rolling terrain is usually irrigated by sprinklers. Irrigated row, field, and grain crops do not conform to normal habitat stages, and vegetation is variable in size, shape, and grow pattern based on crop type. Some crops may form 100 percent canopy while others may have bare space between rows. Crops may be annual or perennial, and may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops.

Row and field crops are usually established on the State's most fertile soils, which historically supported an abundance of wildlife unequalled on other sites, but many species are now controlled by fencing (e.g. deer), trapping (e.g., wild pigs), and poisoning (e.g., rodents) to prevent excessive crop losses. However, availability of irrigation water during dryer months and drought benefits many wildlife species as a source of water (CDFW 2025a).

Barren Lands
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation, and includes any habitat with less than two percent total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and less than 10 percent cover by shrub or tree species. Barren lands within agricultural lands generally present in the form of disked or plowed agricultural fields (CDFW 2025a).

Agricultural – Orchard
Evergreen Orchards
Evergreen orchards are typically dominated by a single species of tree, such as almonds, apples, apricots, peaches, pecans, and walnuts for deciduous orchards and avocados, grapefruit, lemons, limes, olives, oranges, and tangerines for evergreen orchards. Trees range in height at maturity depending on the species, ranging from 10 feet for dwarf varieties to upwards of 60 feet. The understory is usually composed of bare soil or cover crops or low-growing grasses, which are often intensively managed. Orchards are planted on deep fertile soils which once supported productive and diverse natural habitats. The orchards still provide anthropogenic habitat that offers wildlife, such as deer and rabbit that commonly browse on the tree foliage, an area for foraging and cover that allows animals to move through the region. Many wildlife species act as biological control agents by feeding on weed seeds and insect pests (CDFW 2025a).

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-4
Agricultural – Vineyard and Bush Fruit
Vineyard
Vineyards are composed of single species planted in rows, usually supported on wood and/or wire trellises with open space between rows. Rows under the vines are often sprayed with herbicides to prevent growth of herbaceous plants. Between rows of vines, grasses and other herbaceous plants may be planted or allowed to grow as a cover crop to control erosion (CDFW 2025a).

California Mixed Evergreen Forest and Woodland
Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress
The closed-cone pine-cypress habitat is typically dominated by a single species of one of the closedcone pines or cypress with variable height and canopy cover based on species makeup. Cypressdominated habitats usually occur as "arboreal islands" amongst chaparral or forest types, and pinedominated habitats are generally patches with surrounding chaparral, Montane Hardwood-Conifer or Mixed Conifer habitats. Great horned owls and red-tailed hawks will nest in closed-cone pine forests, and numerous other species make use of the closed-cone pine-cypress habitat for feeding and cover (CDFW 2025a).

Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus habitats generally include monotypic stands of Eucalyptus spp. and range from singlespecies thickets to scattered trees to dense stands with closed canopies. Tree heights typically range from 87 to 264 feet, depending on species and spacing. Eucalyptus woodlands are found at low elevations, where freezing is not a problem. Most eucalyptus have been artificially established, usually in and around urban/rural areas. However, eucalyptus grow quickly and can be invasive and are known to become established along stream courses or within natural habitats, encroaching upon and outcompeting existing native vegetation. Eucalyptus habitats serve as roosts, perches, and nest sites for a number of bird species, particularly raptors, as well as overwintering sites for monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) (CDFW 2025a).

Chaparral
Chamise-redshank and Mixed Chaparral
Chaparral habitats are dominated by shrubs, often with thick, stiff, waxy evergreen leaves, which grow to be dense, nearly impenetrable thickets. Mixed chaparral habitats are comprised of a variable patchwork of shrub species, such as buckwheat, chamise, toyon, poison oak, ceanothus, and manzanita, whereas chamise-redshank chaparral may consist of nearly pure stands (50 percent or more relative cover) of chamise or redshank, a mixture of both, or with other shrubs such as toyon, white sage, and ceanothus.

Mixed and chamise-redshank chaparral often occur as a mosaic on low to middle elevation slopes below several woodland and forest types. Compared to chamise-redshank chaparral, mixed chaparral generally occupies more mesic sites at higher elevations or on north-facing slopes. No wildlife species are restricted to only mixed chaparral habitat; however, chamise-redshank chaparral provides habitat for deer, small mammals, birds, and reptiles (CDFW 2025a).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
Coastal Scrub
Coastal scrub is a native vegetation community that is typically found on stabilized backdune slopes, ridges, and flats along the coast. Soils are typically sandy to sandy loam. Central coastal scrub typically forms a mosaic with other communities including coast bluff scrub, maritime chaparral, coast live oak woodland, and coastal prairie. Vegetation in this habitat type is composed of soft scrub of moderate to high cover and is dominated by native mock heather (Ericameria ericoides), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), black sage (Salvia mellifera), common California-aster (Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia), dune bush lupine (Lupinus chamissonis), and sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus). Central coastal scrub provides habitat for a variety of vertebrate species (CDFW 2025a).

Developed – Ruderal – Landscaped
Developed – ruderal – landscaped areas refer to those which have been temporarily or permanently disturbed by human activities and include, but are not limited to, areas of residential, commercial, and industrial development; areas of nonnative vegetation resulting from human activity and disturbance, such as grading; and areas of ornamental landscaping.

Barren Lands
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation, and includes any habitat with less than two percent total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and less than 10 percent cover by shrub or tree species. Urban settings covered in pavement and buildings may also be classified as barren as long as vegetation, including non-native landscaping, does not reach the percent cover thresholds for vegetated habitats (CDFW 2025a).

Freshwater Marsh and Water
Wetlands and Streams
Wetlands and waterways, sourced from NWI and shown in Figure 4.3-2, are highly productive habitats for plants and wildlife. Coastal wetlands and riparian wetlands (linear areas adjacent to streams, creeks and drainages) are especially productive for plants, because recurrent flooding in these areas delivers influxes of soil and nutrients. Riverine refers to areas with intermittently or continuously running water, such as rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are found adjacent to riparian areas and can be contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats. Riverine areas provide habitat for many species of waterfowl, raptors, insectivorous birds, and mammals.

Lacustrine refers to inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water and can vary from small ponds to large lakes or reservoirs. Lacustrine systems provide habitat for many species of small birds and raptors, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Permanent lacustrine systems support fish life, while intermittent types generally do not. Fresh emergent wetlands are characterized by frequently flooded areas with erect, herbaceous vegetation. Fresh emergent wetlands are among the most productive wildlife habitats in California, and provide food, cover, and water for more than 160 species of birds and numerous mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (CDFW 2025a).

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-6
Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands Within the Plan Area
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
Santa Maria contains a number of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-recognized wetlands, including freshwater ponds and freshwater emergent wetlands, concentrated in agricultural and open space areas, as well as freshwater forested and shrub wetland and riverine habitat along the Santa Maria River. These wetlands provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants; and provide a form of groundwater recharge and flooding prevention (City of Santa Maria 2020).

SOUTHERN VERNAL POOLS
Vernal pools are a type of temporary wetland that support plants and animals that are specifically adapted to living with very wet winter and spring conditions followed by very dry summer and fall conditions. Many specially-adapted crustaceans, amphibians, and insects occur only in vernal pools.

Plant species associated with Southern Vernal Pools include Howell’s foxtail (Alopecurus howellii), water pygmyweed (Crassula aquatica), needle spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis), common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), western marsh cudweed (Gnaphalium palustre), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), flowering quillwort (Lilaea scilloides) and roughnutlet popcornflower (Plagiobothrys trachycarpus) (City of Santa Maria 2020).

Barren Lands
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation, and includes any habitat with less than two percent total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and less than 10 percent cover by shrub or tree species. Along rivers and streams, barren land includes vertical river banks and canyon walls (CDFW 2025a).
b. Special Status Species
For the purposes of this analysis, special-status species were considered listed or non-listed specialstatus species if they were classified as one or more of the following:
 Listed Special-Status Species
 Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), including proposed and candidate species.
 Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
 Plant species protected by the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (State Rare).  Non-listed Special-Status Species
 Species designated as Fully Protected (FP), Species of Special Concern (SSC), or Watch List (WL) by the CDFW
 Birds designated as a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) by USFWS  Sensitive species designated by USFWS
 Sensitive species designated by the United States Forest Service (USFS)  Plants assigned a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 through 4 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
 Species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act  Bats considered by the Western Bat Working Group to be “High” or “Medium” priority City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-8
 Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs).

Queries of the USFWS’s IPaC, CNDDB, and CNPS’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CRPR) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding special-status species and sensitive vegetation communities known or with potential to occur in the plan area.

Queries of the CNPS inventory and CNDDB database included the Santa Maria and Twitchell Dam United States Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The results of these scientific database queries are provided as Appendix B of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Grassland
Annual Grassland
Annual grasslands are characterized by open grasslands composed primarily of non-native annual plant species, including wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus rubens), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum). This vegetation community occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Species composition depends largely on weather patterns and livestock grazing. Fall rains cause germination of annual plant seeds. Plants grow slowly during the cool winter months, remaining low in stature until spring, when temperatures increase and stimulate more rapid growth. Many wildlife species use this community for foraging, such as blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), coyote (Canis latrans), and a variety of bird species (CDFW 2025a).

Perennial Grasslands
Perennial grassland habitats occur in two forms in California: coastal prairie, found in areas of northern California under maritime influence, and relics in habitats now dominated by annual grasses and forbs (see Annual Grassland description above). Coastal prairie perennial grassland habitats are dominated by perennial grass species such as California oatgrass, Pacific hairgrass, and sweet vernalgrass. Perennial grassland habitats typically occurs on ridges and south-facing slopes, alternating with forest and scrub in the valleys and on north-facing slopes.

Perennial grasslands provide high-quality habitat for many species, including the common garter snake, western terrestrial garter snake, northern harrier, barn owl, burrowing owl, western kingbird, Say's phoebe, barn swallow, western meadowlark, savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Townsend mole, coast mole, Botta’s pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, California vole, longtailed vole, and Oregon vole. Perennial grasslands often serve as feeding habitat for the turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, peregrine falcon, western bluebird, fringe-tailed bat, big brown bat, striped skunk, coyote, black-tailed jackrabbit, brush rabbit, Roosevelt elk, and blacktailed deer (CDFW 2025a).

Pasture
Pasture vegetation is a mix of perennial grasses and legumes that normally provide 100 percent canopy closure. Old or poorly drained pastures may have patches of weeds in excess. The mix of grasses and legumes varies according to management practices such as seed mixture, fertilization, soil type, irrigation, weed control, and the type of livestock on the pasture. Pastures are planted on flat and gently rolling terrain and may be irrigated. Pastures are used by a variety of wildlife Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
depending upon geographic area and types of adjacent habitats. Ground-nesting birds, including waterfowl, nest in pastures if adequate residual vegetation is present at the onset of the nesting season (CDFW 2025a).

Western Oak Woodland and Savanna
Coastal Oak Woodland
Coast oak woodland is a native vegetation community that consists of deciduous and evergreen hardwoods, typically dominated by coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia). Coast live oak woodlands are variable, ranging from dense woodlands (sometimes intergrading with mixed evergreen forests) on the more mesic north-facing slopes and canyons, to an open savanna on drier, more exposed slopes where the soils are usually shallower. The understory may range from absent to dense.

Typical understory species include shade tolerant shrubs such as native blackberry (Rubus ursinus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum); and native herbaceous plants such as fiesta flower (Pholistoma auritum), miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), and various fern species. Coastal oak woodlands are found in coastal foothills and valleys and provides important habitat for wildlife, including nesting sites, foraging areas for small mammals, and microclimates suitable for amphibians, reptiles, and fungi (CDFW 2025a).

Western Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
Montane Riparian
Montane riparian is a variably vegetated community largely consisting of broad-leaved winter deciduous trees up to 98 feet tall. Such species may include native cottonwood (Populus spp.), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and California bay (Umbellularia californica), with a sparse understory. This vegetation community is associated with lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and springs, where water may be permanent or ephemeral, and generally occurs below 8000 feet above mean sea level. Montane riparian habitats provide food, water, migration and dispersal corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover for an abundance of wildlife (CDFW 2025a).

Valley Foothill Riparian
Valley foothill riparian is a native vegetation community that contains mostly winter deciduous trees, such as native cottonwood (Populus spp.), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and valley oak (Quercus lobata). The canopy height can grow up to 98 feet in a mature riparian forest.

Typical understory shrub layer species include native California blackberry, blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), poison oak, and willows (Salix spp.). This vegetation community is found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography.

Valleys provide deep alluvial soils and a high water table. The substrate is coarse, gravelly or rocky soils more or less permanently moist. Valley foothill riparian habitats provide food, water, migration and dispersal corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover for an abundance of wildlife (CDFW 2025a).

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-10
c. Special Status Species
For the purposes of this analysis, special-status species were considered listed or non-listed specialstatus species if they were classified as one or more of the following:
 Listed Special-Status Species
 Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), including proposed and candidate species.
 Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
 Plant species protected by the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (State Rare).  Non-listed Special-Status Species
 Species designated as Fully Protected (FP), Species of Special Concern (SSC), or Watch List (WL) by the CDFW
 Birds designated as a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) by USFWS  Sensitive species designated by USFWS
 Sensitive species designated by the United States Forest Service (USFS)  Plants assigned a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 through 4 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
 Species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act  Bats considered by the Western Bat Working Group to be “High” or “Medium” priority  Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs).

Queries of the USFWS’s IPaC, CNDDB, and CNPS’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CRPR) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding special-status species and sensitive vegetation communities known or with potential to occur in the plan area.

Queries of the CNPS inventory and CNDDB database included the Santa Maria and Twitchell Dam United States Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The results of these scientific database queries are provided as Appendix B C of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Special-Status Plant Species
Based on the database queries and literature review, a total of 17 special-status plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the plan area (Appendix BC). Of these species, 13 were identified with low potential to occur within the plan area. Appendix BC shows the special-status plant species and habitat requirements for each species within the vicinity of the plan area.

The 13 special-status plant species with the potential to occur in the plan area are listed below with their federal and/or State special-status designation:
 Miles’ milk-vetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus) – CRPR 1B.2  California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) – Federally Endangered, State Endangered, CRPR 1B.1
 La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis) – Federally Endangered, State Threatened, CRPR 1B.1 Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
 Salt marsh bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Maritimus) – Federally Endangered, State Endangered, CRPR 1B.2
 Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) – CRPR 4.2  Dune larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae) – CRPR 1B.2  Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae) – CRPR 1B.2  Suffrutescent wallflower (Erysimum suffrutescens) – CRPR 4.2  Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) - CRPR 1B.1, USFS Sensitive  Blushing layia (Layia erubescens) – CRPR 1B.2
 Large-flowered leptosiphon (Leptosiphon grandifloras) – CRPR 4.2  Southern curly-leaved monardella (Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuate) – CRPR 1B.2  Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) – Federally Threatened Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on the database queries and literature review, a total of 31 special-status invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the plan area (Appendix BC). Of these species, 13 were identified with low potential to occur within the plan area, and 9 were identified with a moderate potential to occur within the plan area. Appendix B shows the special-status wildlife species and habitat requirements for each species within the vicinity of the plan area.

The 22 special-status wildlife species with low to moderate potential to occur in the plan area are listed below with their federal and/or State special-status designation:
 Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) – Federally Threatened  Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1) – Federal Proposed Threatened, USFS Sensitive
 California tiger salamander – Santa Barbara County DPS (Ambystoma californiense pop. 2) – Federally Endangered, State Threatened, CDFW Watch List  Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) – Federally Endangered, CDFW Species of Special Concern  California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) – Federally Threatened, State Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern
 Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) – Federal Proposed Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern
 Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida) – Federal Proposed Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFS Sensitive
 Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) – Federal Proposed Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFS Sensitive
 Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) - CDFW Species of Special Concern  Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) – State Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern,

USFWS BCC
 Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) - CDFW Fully Protected, CDFW Watch List  Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – State Candidate, CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS BCC
 Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) – Federally Threatened, State Endangered City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-12
 Northern harrier (Circus hudsonius) - CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS BCC  Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Federally Designated, State Endangered, CDFW Fully Protected, USFS Sensitive
 California gull (Laurs californicus) - CDFW Watch List, USFWS BCC  Yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli) - USFWS BCC
 Black skimmer (Rynchops niger) - CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS BCC  Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei) - USFWS BCC
 Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) – Federally Endangered, State Endangered  Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) - CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFS Sensitive, Western Bat Working Group “High” priority
 American badger (Taxidea taxus) - CDFW Species of Special Concern d. Nesting Birds
Suitable nesting sites for avian species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), including shrubs, trees, man-made structures, and the ground surface occur throughout the plan area. Some species prefer vegetation for nesting, including ornamental vegetation and some species can be found nesting in man-made structures, such as power poles or the eaves of buildings. Nesting birds may occur during the breeding season (generally February 1 through August 31 but beginning January 1 for some raptor species). e. Sensitive Communities and Critical Habitat
Sensitive Communities
The CNDDB identifies one environmentally sensitive natural community in the city, Southern Vernal Pool, located west of the Santa Maria Public Airport (City of Santa Maria 2020).

Critical Habitat
As shown in Figure 4.3-3, according to the USFWS, designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) exists in the southernmost extents of City limits, south of the Santa Maria Airport. Designated critical habitat for La Graciosa thistle exists within the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Area. Designated critical habitat for steelhead trout exists through a small portion of the northeastern-most extents of City limits. Designated critical habitat for California redlegged frog exists along the southernmost border of the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Area.

Designated critical habitat for Lompoc yerba santa exists south of the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Area (USFWS 2025b).
f. Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
The habitats within the linkages do not necessarily need to be the same or of the same quality as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the linkage merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending upon the species using a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time. Migration corridors can be bordered on either site by urban land uses, and within the City limits these corridors often include barriers to movement such as developed areas and roads.

As shown in Figure 4.3-4, CDFW defines the area within the plan area as having “Limited Connectivity Opportunity”. A small area of “Connections with Implementation Flexibility,” which has connectivity importance, but has not been identified as a channelized area, species corridor, or habitat linkage is present in the southern extents of the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Area.

CDFW does not identify any essential habitat connectivity areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (CDFW 2025b). However, there is a potential that the Santa Maria River is used by wildlife to access habitats in the Sierra Madre and San Rafael Mountains (City of Santa Maria 2020).

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The FESA of 1973 and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The FESA is intended to prevent the unlawful “take” of listed fish, wildlife, and plant species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) specifically states take of species listed as threatened or endangered is unlawful. Take is defined as any action that would harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. Section 10 of the FESA allows the USFWS to issue incidental take permits if take of a listed species may occur during otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires a Habitat Conservation Plan for an incidental take permit on non-federal lands. Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species, and to ensure that the activities of federal agencies will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The USFWS and NOAA are responsible for administration of the FESA and have regulatory authority over federally listed species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds, and prohibits the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds. The USFWS has regulatory authority for the MBTA.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-14
Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat Within the Plan Area
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
Figure 4.3-4 Wildlife Connectivity Within the Plan Area City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-16
Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and USACE implementing regulations, has jurisdiction over the placement of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Congress enacted the CWA “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” In practice, the boundaries of certain waters subject to USACE jurisdiction under Section 404 have not been fully defined. Previous regulations codified in 1986 defined “waters of the United States” as traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments of waters of the United States, tributaries, the territorial seas, and adjacent wetlands.

USACE jurisdictional limits are typically identified by the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or the landward edge of adjacent wetlands, where present. The OHWM is the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area” (33 Code of Federal Regulations 328.3).

The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The USFWS also has responsibility for project review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

This statute requires that all federal agencies consult with USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the State’s wildlife agency (CDFW) for activities that affect, control, or modify streams and other water bodies.

Under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and CDFW review applications for permits issued under Section 404 and provide comments about potential environmental impacts.
b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW is responsible for administration of the CESA. For projects that may affect both a State and federal listed species, compliance with the FESA will satisfy the CESA, provided the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the CESA. “Take” is defined in CFGC Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities under CFGC Section 2081. Project proponents wishing to obtain incidental take permits can do so through a permitting process outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 783.

Additionally, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the CFGC, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively.

Projects that may result in a take of a California listed species require a take permit under the CESA.

The federal and State acts lend protection to species considered rare enough by the scientific Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Unlike the FESA, the CESA prohibits the take of not just listed endangered or threatened species, but also candidate species (species petitioned for listing).

The CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.

A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.

Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.

Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.

California Fish and Game Code - Nesting Bird Protection According to CFGC Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (except English sparrows [Passer domesticus] and European starlings [Sturnus vulgaris]). Sections 3503 and 3513 prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 overlaps with the federal MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The NPPA was enacted in 1977 and allows the California Fish and Wildlife Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Currently, 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-18
CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites; changes in land use; and in certain other situations. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA permitting procedures (CFG Code Section 2081) would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference between regulations and protocols for plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Clean Water Act Section 401, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering Section 401 of the CWA. In addition, where Federal jurisdiction is not asserted (for example, due to a lack of connectivity to a Relatively Permanent Waters and Traditional Navigable Waters), RWQCB assert jurisdiction over “waters of the State” pursuant to Section 13263 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. In this event, the SWRCB may issue general Waste Discharge Requirements regarding discharges to “isolated” waters of the State if limiting criteria are not exceeded (Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the USACE to be Outside of Federal Jurisdiction) or projectspecific Waste Discharge Requirements.

The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present. However, in the absence of statewide guidance, each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19
California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.

Pursuant to CFGC Section 1600, CDFW has authority over all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state, and requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that would “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake” that supports fish or wildlife resources.

A stream is defined as a “body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (CCR, Title 14 Section 1.72). A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required for any project that would result in an adverse impact to a river, stream, or lake. CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to the top of the bank and out to the outer edge of adjacent riparian vegetation if present. However, CDFW can take jurisdiction over a body of flowing water and the landform that conveys it, including water sources and adjoining landscape elements that are byproducts of and affected by interactions with flowing water without regard to size, duration, or the timing of flow.

CDFW Special Animals List
Special-status wildlife species are those species included on the CDFW “Special Animals” list. “Special Animal” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status (CDFW 2025c). The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on this list generally fall into one or more of the following categories:
 Officially listed or proposed for listing under the CESA and/or FESA  State or Federal candidate for possible listing
 Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15380  Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern  Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring  Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon’s range but are threatened with extirpation in California
c. Local Regulations
Santa Maria Municipal Code
The City of Santa Maria Municipal Code Chapters 8-8 (Urban Forestry), 8-12A (Stormwater Runoff Pollution Prevention), 9-68 (Flood Damage Prevention), and 12-44 (Landscape Standards) implement measures which protect biological resources.

Chapter 8-8 implements the City’s Urban Forestry Program, and provides a comprehensive urban forest management strategy which protects and enhances the City’s urban forest and sets forth the following requirements related to trees within the City:

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-20
 Requires that one tree be planted for every forty feet of street frontage.  Enforces the protection of City managed trees requires tree removals to be approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission.
 Requires provisions for tree protection and replacement during construction activities.  Outlines the requirements for replacement trees, including that if healthy trees are removed, they are replaced at a two to one ratio according to the City’s Landscape and Irrigation Standards (2007).
 Protects historic and heritage trees.

Chapter 8-12A implements requirements designed to reduce substantial adverse effects to water quality in the City. These include the following:
 Implementation of construction and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce potential pollutants and protect water quality.
 Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permits.
 Prohibition of discharge, modification, deposition, construction, or placement of material into a water course.

Chapter 9-68 implements requirements designed to minimize and prevent flood damage. These include:
 Restrictions around the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers.
 Minimizing filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage.  Preventing and regulating the construction of flood barriers that would unnaturally divert floodwaters.
 Requires development permits and sets construction standards for projects within flood hazard or floodplains.

Chapter 12-44 implements landscaping design standards intended to preserve trees. These include:
 Listing of existing trees in excess of six inches in diameter and existing street trees within site planning documents.
 Restrictions on allowed grading alterations within three inches of a tree trunk.  Requires approvals for tree removal and tree replacement Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-21

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Methodology
The assessment of potential impacts to biological resources were informed based on a review of readily available information from the USFWS NWI, USFWS IPaC, CDFW CNDDB, the NOAA Protected Resources Application, the City of Santa Maria Existing Conditions Report (2020), and CDFW vegetation datasets. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents an assessment of the potential for adoption of the plan to result in significant impacts to biological resources. Because the EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions for many years into the future, this analysis relies on program-level and qualitative evaluation.

The adoption of the 2045 General Plan does not include physical development that could directly impact biological resources. However, implementation of the 2045 General Plan would facilitate development within the City’s SOI. Each proposed project under the 2045 General Plan would require subsequent analysis to evaluate project-specific impacts to biological resources, significance, need for project-specific mitigation, and any subsequent discretionary permits or coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, USACE, CDFW, RWQCB) that may be required.

Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-22
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD HAVE A

SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR AS A RESULT OF HABITAT MODIFICATION. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, AS WELL AS MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-1(A) THROUGH BIO-1(K) WOULD ENSURE THAT IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ON CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

As shown in Figure 4.3-1, the City is primarily developed; however, the plan area contains grassland, chapparal, riparian, wetland, and oak woodland areas which could serve as habitat for special status species. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, Setting, there are 13 special status plant species and 22 special status animal species with potential to occur within the plan area. Critical habitat for California tiger salamander is also present within the plan area. Potentially significant effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur if temporary disturbance during construction or permanent development facilitated by the plan would result in incremental direct loss of habitat, fragmentation of larger open areas and wildlife corridors, or disturbance of special status wildlife or vegetation species.

The 2045 General Plan Update includes the following policies which would minimize impacts to protected biological resources and preserve habitats that may support special-status species and sensitive habitats, including nesting migratory birds:

Policy COS-1.1: Natural habitat and wildlife corridors. Protect and, to the extent feasible, expand natural habitat and wildlife corridor areas, natural wetlands, and other natural lands throughout the city and Sphere of Influence.

Policy COS-1.3: Natural biodiversity. Increase natural biodiversity through the reintroduction of native species, removal of non-native, invasive species, and proper sustainable maintenance of vegetated areas.

Policy COS-1.5: Endangered, threatened, and special status species. Minimize potential impacts of development on federal or sState endangered and threatened species and non-listed special status species through the development and permit review process. Condition development projects to avoid impacts to these species, to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy COS-4.1: Santa Maria River protection. Protect and enhance the beneficial uses of the Santa Maria River to support essential community and environmental needs, including municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural supply, and groundwater recharge.

Policy COS-4.3: Groundwater contamination. Minimize groundwater contamination from current and previous oil and gas operations.

Policy COS-5.3: Fugitive dust emissions. Mitigate air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction and demolition activities by requiring the use of best management practices.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-23
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-2.6: Contaminant mitigation. Manage contaminated sites to protect natural systems from groundwater infiltration and stormwater runoff.

Policy S-3.2: Agricultural runoff reduction. Work with the County of Santa Barbara to reduce off-site and urban flooding caused by agricultural runoff.

Special-Status Plants
Thirteen special-status plants have been documented in the plan area, including: Miles’ milk-vetch, California jewelflower, La Graciosa thistle, salt marsh bird’s-beak, paniculate tarplant, dune larkspur, Blochman’s leafy daisy, Suffrutescent wallflower, Mesa horkelia, blushing layia, large-flowered leptosiphon, southern curly-leaved monardella, and spreading navarretia.

While these 13 special-status plants have a low potential to occur within the plan area, development facilitated by the plan could result in direct impacts to special-status plant species through vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and habitat modification during construction activities, potentially leading to the loss of individuals and degradation of habitat. Development facilitated by the plan could also result in permanent loss of habitat. Therefore, impacts to specialstatus plant species would be potentially significant.

Special-Status Wildlife
Thirteen special-status wildlife species were identified with low potential to occur within the plan area, and nine were identified with a moderate potential to occur within the plan area. Those with low potential to occur include southwestern pond turtle, tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, marbled murrelet, northern harrier, bald eagle, California gull, yellow-billed magpie, black skimmer, Lawrence’s goldfinch, least Bell’s vireo, pallid bat, and American badger. Those with moderate potential to occur include vernal pool fairy shrimp, monarch butterfly, California tiger salamander, Arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, western spadefoot, Northern California legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and burrowing owl.

Reptiles
Coast horned lizard and northern California legless lizard have a moderate potential to occur within the plan area, and southwestern pond turtles have low potential to occur within the plan area.

Direct impacts to these species could occur if individuals are present in work areas during construction of development facilitated by the plan. Direct impacts to special-status reptile species could include injury or death as a result of individuals being crushed or buried by project vehicles, equipment, or displaced soil, entrapment of individuals in excavation areas, disturbance of individuals by construction-related noise and vibration (resulting from grading or other construction activities), impacts to vegetation used for food and shelter, reduction of refugia habitats, and accidental destruction of active burrows by construction vehicles or equipment. Development facilitated by the plan could also result in permanent loss of suitable habitat for these species.

Potential indirect impacts resulting from development facilitated by the plan include the introduction or spread of invasive plant species, fugitive dust, standing water or food waste, and soil compaction that hinders burrowing. Indirect impacts to aquatic habitat for southwestern pond turtle include erosion, sedimentation, fire, and runoff of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts to City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-24
coast horned lizard, northern California legless lizard, and southwestern pond turtle would be potentially significant.

Mammals
Bats have the potential to roost in buildings and trees, including street trees within the plan area.

Impacts to pallid bats could occur if bat roosts are present in trees or buildings proposed for removal or in the vicinity of disturbance in undeveloped areas. These impacts could result in direct mortality or abandonment of maternal colonies, if present. Development facilitated by the plan could also result in permanent loss of suitable habitat. Impacts to pallid bat would be potentially significant.

If American badgers are present in disturbance areas or on access roads during construction of development facilitated by the plan, direct impacts to the species could occur; including injury or death resulting from vehicle collision, damage or destruction of occupied burrows, disturbance from construction noise/vibration, and loss or degradation of foraging habitat. Direct impacts may occur if disturbance at maternity dens resulting from construction noise/vibration or human presence negatively affects pup-rearing. The species may be indirectly impacted by impacts to its habitat including the spread of invasive plants, fugitive dust (resulting from grading or other construction activities), erosion, sedimentation, and runoff of hazardous materials. Additionally, soil compaction in work areas may reduce habitat for prey species. Development facilitated by the plan could also result in permanent loss of suitable habitat. Impacts to American badgers would be potentially significant.

Invertebrates
Monarch butterflies have the potential to overwinter in eucalyptus and pine-cypress groves throughout the plan area. Development facilitated by the plan could result in direct impacts to monarch butterfly if roosts are present in trees proposed for removal or in the vicinity of disturbance in undeveloped areas. Development facilitated by the plan could result in additional direct impacts to monarch butterflies could include disturbance of individuals by constructionrelated noise and vibration (resulting from grading or other construction activities), impacts to vegetation used for food and shelter, and reduction of refugia habitats. The species may be indirectly impacted by development facilitated by the plan due to habitat impacts, including the spread of invasive plants and fugitive dust (resulting from grading or other construction activities).

Impacts to monarch butterfly would be potentially significant.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp are a federally threatened species with moderate potential to occur within the plan area. Suitable vernal pool habitat is present in the plan area near the Santa Maria Airport. If vernal pool fairy shrimp are present during construction and development facilitated by the proposed project, these species may be directly impacted through injury or mortality of individuals resulting from project vehicles or equipment, and habitat loss from leveling out or filling in the wetlands. Indirect impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp could result from potential stormwater runoff from development activities entering potential suitable habitat during and post- construction.

Stormwater runoff from development facilitated by the plan may result in degraded water quality and other essential water conditions that are required for species survival. Impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp would be potentially significant.

Crotch’s bumble bee is listed as a CDFW state candidate (SC) endangered species. The species inhabits various habitats in California between San Diego and Redding, including open grassland, shrublands, and chaparral in semi-urban settings. Crotch’s bumble bee prefers food plant genera Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-25
including Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. The plan area is within the known range of this species, and suitable habitat and food genera are present in the vicinity of the plan area. While there are no CNDDB observations of this species in the plan area, based on the presence of suitable habitat as well as nearby occurrences and their transitory nature, this species has the potential to occur in the plan area. Impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be potentially significant.

Birds
Construction activities associated with development facilitated by the plan could potentially result in impacts to birds and raptors, including tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, marbled murrelet, northern harrier, bald eagle, California gull, yellow-billed magpie, black skimmer, Lawrence’s goldfinch, and least Bell’s vireo. Development facilitated by the plan may result in direct impacts if they are disturbed by the noise and visual presence of personnel or equipment in construction areas or increased traffic in the vicinity (which may result in collisions). Indirect impacts resulting from development facilitated by the plan may include the introduction or spread of invasive plants, fugitive dust (resulting from grading or other construction activities), erosion, sedimentation, and the runoff of hazardous materials, all of which could degrade the quality of bird habitat (especially in riparian habitat areas) and the quality of foraging habitat. These impacts would be potentially significant.

If burrowing owls are present in disturbance areas when construction activities associated with development facilitated by the plan occur, the species may be directly impacted through injury or mortality of individuals resulting from collisions with construction vehicles or equipment; destruction of occupied burrows and/or active nest sites; and disturbance from increased vehicle traffic, noise at work sites (resulting from grading, helicopter activity, or other construction activities), and human presence that could result in an interruption of normal behaviors or nest abandonment. The species may also be subject to direct impacts due to the loss or degradation of foraging habitat in work areas resulting from vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, and/or permanent development. Development facilitated by the plan may also have indirect impacts to burrowing owl, including introduction or spread of invasive plants, fugitive dust (resulting from grading or other construction activities), erosion, sedimentation, and the runoff of hazardous materials which could indirectly impact burrowing owl by decreasing habitat value. In addition, development facilitated by the project may result in construction activities which increase soil compaction, which may impede burrow creation. Impacts to burrowing owl would be potentially significant.

If nesting birds are present at individual development sites, or immediate vicinity of individual sites, development facilitated by the plan could result in direct mortality through removal of active nests or disturbance levels that cause nest abandonment. Nesting birds and raptors have the potential to nest on buildings, in shrubs and trees, in rocky outcrops, and on bare ground throughout the City.

Vegetation, including street trees, in the City can provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites, and favorable nesting habitat. Direct impacts to nesting birds may occur from disturbance due to increased noise, and human presence could result in nest abandonment or otherwise reduce nesting success due to development facilitated by the plan. Vehicle strikes resulting in injury or mortality may increase with additional vehicles and equipment being operated in the plan area.

Development facilitated by the plan may also have indirect impacts to nesting birds, including fugitive dust generated by road grading, which can accumulate on surrounding vegetation and degrade the quality of nesting and foraging habitats for birds, and vegetation trimming, which may temporarily reduce the quantity and quality of habitat by decreasing vegetative cover. Development City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-26
facilitated by the plan may result in erosion and sedimentation, fire, hazardous materials, and invasive non-native plants which can also indirectly impact nesting and foraging habitats. Impacts to migration or foraging habitats during construction activities facilitated by the plan may have an indirect effect on birds that rely on these habitats but nest elsewhere.

Future development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with the requirements of the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which include obtaining prior authorization by the USFWS before the take of a protected migratory bird species occurs, subject to USFWS requirements, and prohibiting the take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. However, existing City regulations do not mandate procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, it is possible development facilitated by the plan could result in disturbance to birds or raptors and potentially violate the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and/or 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. As a result, impacts to nesting birds are potentially significant.

Amphibians
California tiger salamander, Arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, and western spadefoot have moderate potential to occur within the plan area. The plan area contains USFWS designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander (USFWS 2025). California tiger salamanders require access to both aquatic and upland habitat throughout their life cycle. They use standing bodies of fresh water, like ponds, vernal pools and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies for breeding, and require access to upland habitat that contains small animal burrows or underground hideaways for shelter and protection from predators and desiccation during nonbreeding periods (USFWS 2025b). Where suitable habitats are present, development facilitated by the plan may result in direct impacts from individuals being crushed by project vehicles and equipment, buried by displaced soil, or trapped in excavations as well as direct impacts from the loss or degradation of low-lying areas where pools form during rain events and upland burrowing habitat. If development facilitated by the plan were to occur within wetlands, streams, or upland habitat areas, impacts to California tiger salamander would be potentially significant.

Suitable wash and river habitats for Arroyo toad are present in the plan area, such as along the Santa Maria River. A CDFW designated critical habitat area for California red legged frog exists on the border of the southernmost extents of the Sphere of Influence/General Plan Area. Suitable grasslands and vernal pool habitat for western spadefoot are present in the plan area. Where suitable habitats are present for these species, development facilitated by the plan may result in direct impacts from individuals being crushed by project vehicles and equipment, buried by displaced soil, or trapped in excavations as well as direct impacts from the loss or degradation of low-lying areas where pools form during rain events and upland burrowing habitat. Direct impacts to these species would be potentially significant.

Indirect impacts to special status species which utilize riparian corridors and other aquatic habitat (i.e. southwestern pond turtle, western spadefoot, California tiger salamander, Arroyo toad, California red-legged frog) could result from future development facilitated by the plan if suitable habitats are indirectly impacted by runoff of sediment and hazardous materials from disturbance areas, resulting in degraded water quality, or noise and vibration (resulting from grading or other construction activities). Construction activities that would disturb one or more acres of land are subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit. Compliance with the Construction General Permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP includes project-specific BMPs to control Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-27
erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants from construction into stormwater. Typical BMPs include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences, erosion control blankets, and anti-tracking pads at site exits to prevent off-site transport of soil materials. Section 8-12A.07 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code requires compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Section 8-12A.08 requires any construction activities to implement appropriate BMPs to prevent the discharge of sediment and potential pollutants.

Development facilitated by the plan would also be subject to the provisions of federal and State regulations protecting biological and water resources, including, but not limited to, FESA, CESA, CWA, and the NPPA. These regulations include requirements for biological studies where potential habitat exists, identification of potential jurisdictional waters, and consultation with applicable regulatory agencies where protected biological resources may occur. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would minimize indirect impacts to special status species that utilize aquatic and riparian habitat. Therefore, the plan would result in less than significant indirect impacts to special status species within aquatic or riparian habitat.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1(a) Biological Resources Screening and Assessment
For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City Staff, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures BIO-1[b] through BIO-1[k)]) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Pending the results of the projectspecific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.

BIO-1(b) Special-status Plant Species Surveys
For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for specialstatus plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-28
staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist.

A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.

If special-status plants are not found during special-status plant surveys, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2B plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys, the Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c) and BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.

BIO-1(c) Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation If federally-listed and/or state-listed individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1[b]) and would be directly impacted by development, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm. Prior to initiation of construction activities the project proponent shall submit a site plan depicting the location(s) of special-status plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and approval.

If special-status plants can be avoided, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure BIO1(d) shall be implemented.

BIO-1(d) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
If federally- and/or state-listed plants, non-listed special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, or waters of the US and/or State cannot be avoided and will be impacted by development facilitated by the plan, the City shall require mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1 per acre of impact (and 1:1 per tree), to be determined in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable, for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City for review and approval. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components:

Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).

Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).

Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).

Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-29
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).

Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).

Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.

An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.

Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.

Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).

All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.

If a federally and/or state-listed plant species has the potential be impacted, an HMMP shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.

Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, documenting compliance with the HMMP and achievement of success criteria.

BIO-1(e) Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys
For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that suitable habitat may be present for federal- or state-listed, candidate, or proposed species, the City shall require protocol habitat assessments/surveys be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits. If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the project applicant shall be required to complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.)
BIO-1(f) Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization For development facilitated by the plan where potential impacts to aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species are identified by the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), the following measures shall be applied.

Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-30
All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31, if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and may be subject to regulatory agency approval.

All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.

No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.

If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease.

A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.

For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization).

The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist.

This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of three feet above grade and two feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than five feet. The applicant shall inspect the fence weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.

All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.

No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.

At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.

All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.

Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Santa Barbara County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore speciesappropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-31
Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]). The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation. Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction.

BIO-1(g) Worker Environmental Awareness Program
For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels and prior to construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the City shall require the project proponent to arrange Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel to attend, conducted by a City-approved biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status resources that may occur in the construction area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP training and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.

BIO-1(h) Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization For all development facilitated by the plan in undeveloped areas and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, a pre-construction clearance survey for Northern California legless lizard shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The survey shall cover the entire disturbance footprint within suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible, and should identify all special-status wildlife species observed on the project site. During the pre-construction survey the qualified biologist shall inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other suitable refuge. If Northern California legless lizards are identified, individuals shall be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable cover with loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the project site, as accessible. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, for review and approval.

BIO-1(i) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal For all development facilitated by the plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-32
spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.

If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
 When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
 Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.  Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.  If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following:
 If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure.  If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (April 15 to August 31).  Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two.  Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required.  If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-33
activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.

BIO-1(j) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization
For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, the City shall require that all construction activities (including equipment staging, grading, and construction) shall be avoided during the monarch butterfly overwintering season between October 15 through March 15, if practicable. In the event construction activities cannot be avoided during the overwintering season, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for roosting monarch butterflies within seven days prior to initiation of construction activities to determine their presence/absence.

If no monarch butterflies are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary. In the event construction pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if construction is planned to restart during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October 15 through March 15), the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a new survey in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure.

If construction activities occur during the overwintering season and monarch butterflies are present, the qualified biologist shall establish a protective buffer, ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the roosting site in which monarch butterflies are aggregating. The buffer shall be delineated on site by the biologist with flagging or staking visible by construction personnel. The construction contractor shall ensure no construction occurs within the protective buffer, including staging of equipment or stopping or idling in the buffer, during the overwintering season. In the event construction activities, or other use of equipment, is needed to work within the buffer, the qualified biologist shall be present on site to monitor construction activities and determine if the work is disturbing the aggregated butterflies. If the biologist determines the work is disturbing the butterflies, the biologist shall have the authority to stop work within the protective buffer at any time. In addition, due to the regular movement of the butterflies and locations of the aggregations, the biologist shall have the discretion to adjust the protective buffers, as necessary.

BIO-1(k) Pre- Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification For all development facilitated by the plan, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the Santa Maria region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-34
qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) would reduce potential impacts to special-status plant and animal species by requiring a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels, and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(b) and BIO-1(c) would reduce potential impacts to special-status plant species to a less than significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys and avoidance and minimization measures for special-status plant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) would reduce potential impacts to listed plants, non-listed special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, and waters to a less than significant level by requiring the preparation of, and adherence to, an HMMP if special-status species or habitat are present. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(e) and BIO-1(f) would reduce impacts to endangered and threatened special-status species by requiring habitat assessments, protocol surveys, and avoidance and minimization measures for these species. Implementation of Mitigation measures BIO-1(g) would reduce potential impacts to special-status plants and wildlife during construction facilitated by the plan by facilitating a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) would reduce potential impacts to Northern California legless lizard to a less than significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures if Northern California legless lizard are present on a project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-(i) would reduce potential impacts to bat species to a less than significant level by requiring assessment and preconstruction surveys of potential building and tree removals, and avoidance of roosting bats.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(j) would reduce potential impacts to monarch butterfly to a less than significant level by requiring assessment of potential tree removals and avoidance of overwintering monarchs. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(k) would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and avoidance measures if nesting birds are present on a project site.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-35
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k).

Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Impact BIO-2 WETLANDS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA MAY BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ADOPTED CITY

REGULATIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT, SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, AND WETLANDS. COMPLIANCE WITH THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT, SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-1(A) AND BIO-1(D) WOULD ENSURE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT, SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, AND WETLANDS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The CNDDB identifies southern vernal pool as a sensitive natural community which could occur in the plan area. According to the USFWS NWI, wetlands in and surrounding the City consist of estuarine and marine habitats, freshwater ponds, freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested and shrub wetlands, and riverine habitats (USFWS 2025c). Development facilitated by the plan is not likely to result in the removal of large areas of riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural community habitat, as development would generally occur in areas of the City that are developed and surrounded by existing development. However, as shown in Figure 4.3-2, there are wetlands identified within the Annexation Area and throughout the plan area where development facilitated by the plan may occur which may be significantly degraded, or removed, by development projects. Development facilitated by the plan would be subject to Santa Maria Municipal Code Chapters 8-12A (Stormwater Runoff Pollution Prevention), and 9-68 (Flood Damage Prevention) and NPDES permit requirements to protect water quality prior to, during, and post-construction.

The 2045 General Plan Update includes the following proposed policies that would protect sensitive, riparian, creek, and wetland habitats:

Policy COS-1.1: Natural habitat and wildlife corridors. Protect and, to the extent feasible, expand natural habitat and wildlife corridor areas, natural wetlands, and other natural lands throughout the city and sphere of influence.

Policy COS-1.3: Natural biodiversity. Increase natural biodiversity through the reintroduction of native species, removal of non-native, invasive species, and proper sustainable maintenance of vegetated areas.

Policy COS-1.5: Endangered, threatened, and special status species. Minimize potential impacts of development on federal or State endangered and threatened species and non-listed special status species through the development and permit review process. Condition development projects to avoid impacts to these species, to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy COS-4.1: Santa Maria River protection. Protect and enhance the beneficial uses of the Santa Maria River to support essential community and environmental needs, including municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural supply, and groundwater recharge.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-36
Policy COS-4.3: Groundwater contamination. Minimize groundwater contamination from current and previous oil and gas operations.

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-2.6: Contaminant mitigation. Manage contaminated sites to protect natural systems from groundwater infiltration and stormwater runoff.

Policy S-3.2: Agricultural runoff reduction. Work with the County of Santa Barbara to reduce off-site and urban flooding caused by agricultural runoff.

Implementation of proposed policies in the plan would ensure sensitive habitats are identified prior to project-specific siting and habitat areas are protected where applicable, and development facilitated by the plan would be subject to applicable federal, State, and City requirements, which would minimize potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands.

However, unmitigated impacts to riparian and other sensitive natural communities resulting from development facilitated by the plan would still be potentially significant, requiring Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) to reduce potential impacts.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) (listed above) are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) would reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands by requiring a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels, and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) would reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural communities and waters to a less than significant level by requiring the preparation of, and adherence to, an HMMP if special-status species or habitat are present. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) and adherence to federal, State, and City requirements and proposed plan policies COS-1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 4.1, and 4.3, PFS2.3 and 2.6, and S-3.2.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-37
Threshold 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact BIO-3 DUE TO THE EXISTING LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE NO ESSENTIAL WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY AREAS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA. WITH ADHERENCE TO THE PROPOSED POLICIES OF THE 2045

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE MOVEMENT OF

NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA, OR ON ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS.

Due to the existing level of development, the plan area is not within an essential connectivity area as defined by CDFW (CDFW 2025b). Development facilitated by the plan would generally occur in areas that are developed or surrounded by existing development and urban disturbance, and no development is anticipated or planned within the Santa Maria River. As a result, development facilitated by the plan would not result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife movement because they would not obstruct wildlife corridors or fragment habitat such that wildlife movement is restricted.

The 2045 General Plan Update includes the following proposed policies, which would minimize impacts from any future development on sensitive habitat that could provide opportunities for wildlife movement:

Policy COS-1.1: Natural habitat and wildlife corridors. Protect and, to the extent feasible, expand natural habitat and wildlife corridor areas, natural wetlands, and other natural lands throughout the city and sphere of influence.

Policy COS-1.2: City greenbelt. Coordinate with Santa Barbara County to dDevelop a continuous system of greenbelts and natural corridors.

Policy COS-1.3: Natural biodiversity. Increase natural biodiversity through the reintroduction of native species, removal of non-native, invasive species, and proper sustainable maintenance of vegetated areas.

Policy COS-1.5: Endangered, threatened, and special status species. Minimize potential impacts of development on federal or State endangered and threatened species and non-listed special status species through the development and permit review process. Condition development projects to avoid impacts to these species, to the greatest extent feasible.

With implementation of the proposed policies in the 2045 General Plan Update, as well as compliance with the Santa Maria Municipal Code Chapters 8-12A (Stormwater Runoff Pollution Prevention), and 9-68 (Flood Damage Prevention), development facilitated by the plan would have a less than significant impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is required because impacts would be less than significant.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-38
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact BIO-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE PROPOSED POLICIES OF THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO PROTECTION OF TREES AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Potential impacts to trees and other biological resources, such as those resulting from tree and vegetation removal, may result from development facilitated by the plan. The plan area has trees within its developed and disturbed areas, as well as its surrounding parks and open space. Chapter 8-8 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code outlines permit requirements for tree maintenance and removal. Chapter 12-44 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code implements provides regulations governing trees in the City and codifies the protection of existing trees unless otherwise approved by City Parks Division as part of a development plan. Section 8-8.07 protects publicly owned trees from damage or injury. Section 8-8.08 and 8-8.09 provide requirements for vegetation protection plans and replacement for existing publicly owned trees and vegetation during construction projects. Pursuant to Section 8-8.10 and 8-8.14, any publicly owned or maintained tree damaged or removed is required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio at a minimum size of a 24-inch box of a comparable size and species, unless specifically approved by the City Parks Division in accordance with the tree planting requirements outlined in Section 8-8.15. Additionally, Chapter 12-44 provides tree replacement requirements dependent on the size of the tree removed. Section 8-8.19 also protects historic and heritage trees from damage or removal.

The 2045 General Plan Update includes the following proposed policies that would protect biological resources and preserve trees and the urban forest:

Policy COS-1.1: Natural habitat and wildlife corridors. Protect and, to the extent feasible, expand natural habitat and wildlife corridor areas, natural wetlands, and other natural lands throughout the city and sphere of influence.

Policy COS-1.2: City greenbelt. Coordinate with Santa Barbara County to develop a continuous system of greenbelts and natural corridors.

Policy COS-1.3: Natural biodiversity. Increase natural biodiversity through the reintroduction of native species, removal of non-native, invasive species, and proper sustainable maintenance of vegetated areas.

Policy COS-1.4: Urban rewilding. Implement urban rewilding projects to reintroduce natural processes, restore natural ecosystems, and promote biodiversity.

Policy COS-1.5: Endangered, threatened, and special status species. Minimize potential impacts of development on federal or State endangered and threatened species and non-listed special status species through the development and permit review process. Condition development projects to avoid impacts to these species, to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy COS-3.1: Urban forestry regulations. I Adopt and implement the Urban Forest Management Plan with the goal of expanding the urban canopy to 20 percent of the city by improving tree maintenance and planting standards in the City’s Municipal Code.

Policy COS-3.2: City canopy cover. Facilitate new tree plantings per the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan, with a specific focus on disadvantaged communities.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-39
Development facilitated by the plan would adhere to the requirements of the Santa Maria Municipal Code and the proposed policies of the 2045 General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including a tree preservation policy or ordinance, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is required because impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE

PROVISION OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plans in the plan area. Therefore, development and improvements in the plan area would not conflict with such plans. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required because there would be no impact.

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Regional cumulative impacts consider the Citywide impacts together with similar impacts of reasonably anticipated regional projects/programs.

The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the determination of the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection

3.3, Cumulative Development.

By its nature, a general plan considers cumulative impacts insofar as it considers cumulative development that could occur within the City limits and annexation areas. Cumulative development has the potential to result in adverse effects to special-status species. Cumulative development could directly impact candidate, sensitive, or special-status species injury or death as a result of individuals being crushed or buried by construction vehicles, additional vehicles brought to an area by development, equipment, or displaced soil; entrapment of individuals in excavation areas, disturbance of individuals by construction-related noise and vibration (resulting from grading or other construction activities); impacts to vegetation used for food and shelter, reduction of refugia habitats, and accidental destruction of active burrows and nests by construction vehicles or equipment. Cumulative development could also result in permanent loss of suitable habitat.

Potential indirect impacts resulting from development facilitated by the plan include the City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.3-40
introduction or spread of invasive plant species, fugitive dust, standing water or food waste, and soil compaction that hinders burrowing. Additionally, cumulative development could indirectly impact candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, including critical habitat essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, through habitat degradation or removal. As a result, cumulative impacts are potentially significant.

The plan would not facilitate substantial permanent development in riparian habitat and would implement policies designed to preserve and restore habitat for special-status species. These include Policy COS-1.1 and Policy COS-1.5 which emphasize the protection of wildlife habitat.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k) would ensure development facilitated by the plan would minimize potential impacts to special status plant and wildlife species and nesting birds. Therefore, the plan would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.

Cumulative development could indirectly impact natural water resources due to offsite polluted runoff or sedimentation. Cumulative development proposed in areas identified as jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands, streambed/banks, or riparian vegetation would be subject to the permit requirements of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, pursuant to Section 404 and Section 401 of the CWA, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Applicable federal and State requirements would minimize potential indirect impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands to a less than significant level. However, direct impacts to streams, wetlands, and riparian vegetation resulting from degradation or removal of habitat would be potentially significant.

The plan would not facilitate substantial permanent development in wetland, stream, or riparian habitat and would implement policies designed to preserve and restore wetland and aquatic habitats. These include, but are not limited to, Policy COS-1.1 and Policy COS-4.1 which emphasize the protection of the Santa Maria River and other wildlife habitat. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) would ensure development facilitated by the plan minimizes potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. Therefore, the plan would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands.

Due to the existing level of development, the cumulative development area is not located within a CDFW-designated essential wildlife connectivity area. The plan includes Policy COS-1.1 and COS-1.2 which seek to protect and enhance remaining natural habitat and wildlife corridors within the City.

Therefore, cumulative development would have less than significant impacts on wildlife corridors.

Cumulative development would be required to adhere to applicable local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources enforced by the agencies that have jurisdiction over a project site.

There is no Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan within the proposed plan area; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to conflicts local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan would occur.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section assesses potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. This section includes a brief summary of cultural and tribal cultural resources background information and a review of known archaeological, built environmental, historical, and tribal cultural resources as well as potential impacts to these resources as a result of implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update.

The background information and analysis in this section is partially based on the Environmental Background Report for the City of Santa Maria, prepared in December 2020 to support their General Plan Update.

4.4.1 Setting
The cultural history of Santa Maria and the surrounding Santa Maria River Valley can be divided into three major eras: Native-American, Spanish-Mexican and Anglo-American. Remnants from these unique eras exist in the region as a diverse range of tribal, archaeological and architectural resources. The Santa Maria River Valley served as part of the larger Chumash territory that extended from the coast and Channel Islands and inland to include Santa Barbara, most of Ventura, parts of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and Los Angeles Counties. The late 18th and early 19th centuries saw the influx of Spanish-Mexican culture, with the establishment of large Spanish Land Grants in the area along the coast, while the modern Anglo-American era began in the late 19th century with the break-up and sale of the Spanish Land Grants (Santa Maria 2020). a. Prehistoric Setting
Native American Era
The Chumash were the primary Native American inhabitants of Santa Maria before the arrival of Europeans. The earliest inhabitants of Southern California were transient hunters visiting the region approximately 12,000 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era), who were the cultural ancestors of the Chumash. At the peak, the Chumash population was estimated to be in the tens of thousands, with territory of around 7,000 square miles that spanned from Malibu to Paso Robles, stretching inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley (Santa Maria 2020).

Permanent Chumash villages included hemispherical dwellings arranged in close groups, with the chief having the largest for social obligations (Brown 2001). Each Chumash village had a formal cemetery marked by tall painted poles and often with a defined entrance area (Gamble et al. 2001).

Archaeological studies have identified separate sections for elite versus commoner families within the cemetery grounds (King 1969).

The acorn was a dietary staple for the mainland Chumash, though its dominance varied by coastal or inland location. Chumash diet also included cattail roots, fruits and pads from cactus, and bulbs and tubers of plants such as amole (Miller 1988).

The Chumash people were known as skilled boat builders, allowing them to travel up and down the Pacific Coast and inhabit the Channel Islands. The wooden plank canoe was employed in the pursuit of marine mammals and fish as well as facilitating an active trade network between the mainland and the Channel Islands (Johnson 1987).

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-2
The Chumash villages became increasingly permanent over time, with chiefs and shaman priests generally at the highest positions of authority. Women could serve equally with men as chiefs and priests. One chief would often hold responsibility for multiple villages. The Chumash Native American population was decimated due to European disease in the 1700s and 1800s, spread primarily by Spaniards as the mission system was founded and as the region was increasingly colonized by Mexicans and Americans (Santa Maria 2020). b. Historic-Era Setting
Spanish-Mexican Era
Spanish settlement of the Santa Maria Valley began with the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo in 1772 and Mission La Purisima in Lompoc 1787. In 1821, Spain granted Mexico independence and soon after the Missions were secularized. Administrators were appointed to transfer such lands to private property owners and to proceed with secular development of the area. This is now known as the Rancho Era, which ended with the transfer of California from Mexico to the United States following the Mexican-American War (Santa Maria 2020).

Anglo-American Era
Americans from the United States began arriving in California in the 1840s. After gold was discovered elsewhere in California, settlers were drawn to the Santa Maria Valley by the possibility of free land, when mission lands were made available for private ownership. With the arrival of farmers and other settlers after California gained statehood, the Santa Maria River Valley became one of the most productive agricultural areas in the state. Four prominent settlers, Rudolph Cook, John Thornburg, Isaac Fesler, and Isaac Miller, each contributed 40 acres of land where their properties met at the present day intersection of Broadway and Main Street to form what was then called “Central City” in 1875. Ten years later, the city’s name was changed to “Santa Maria” (Santa Maria 2020).

Oil exploration began in the Santa Maria Valley in 1888, with large discoveries in the early 20th century. Oil discoveries rapidly attracted a growing population to the Santa Maria Valley, bringing about the need for local governance. In 1905, Santa Maria was incorporated as a general law city.

Until 1954, the city remained four square miles in size. Since that time, annexations have increased the size to approximately 22 square miles (Santa Maria 2020).

Since 1957, the city’s economic and population growth has been influenced by growth of Vandenberg Air Force Base, 20 miles south of the city. In the 1970s, the Santa Maria Town Center mall was constructed (Santa Maria 2020). Since that time the City Council has worked to maintain Santa Maria’s status as a regional retail hub, continuously working to add retail outlets. Santa Maria remains the leader in retail sales growth for Santa Barbara County. Agriculture, however, remains the city’s chief economic influence. The Santa Maria Valley is home to several vineyards and wineries and primary crops include strawberries, celery, lettuce, peas, and squash. The Santa Maria Valley is also home to several cattle ranches.

Previously Identified Historical Cultural Resources
The history of Santa Maria is preserved in its Historic Overlay District, landmarks, and objects of historical merit. The historic landmarks and objects listed below were identified by the City’s Landmark Committee and determined to contain historical merit. Of these resources, the Minerva Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
Club is the only one listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Places (CRHR), none of the other resources below are listed on either register.  The Minerva Club
 The First United Methodist Church
 Saint Peter’s Episcopal Church
 The Martin Luther Tunnell Home
 The Santa Maria Inn
 The Reuben Hart Home
 Santa Maria High School
 The Landmark Building
 City Hall
 The Coca Cola Bottling Company
 Heritage Walk
 The Haslam Building
 Buena Vista Park
 Flagpole at the George S. Hobbs’ Civic Center
 Site of Santa Maria’s First Waterworks
 Site of the Pacific Coast Railroad Depot
 Four Corners Intersection at Main Street and Broadway  Veterans’ Memorial Community Center
 First Masonic Temple Site
 John Long House
 Orange Street Kindergarten
 Cypress Street Kindergarten
 St. Mary’s Catholic Church
 Bell at El Camino School
 Site of Leo’s Drive-In
 Bas Relief of Columbus’ Ship, Santa Maria
 Santa Maria Civic Theater
 Zanettti Home
 Site of Rusconi’s Café
 Waler House
 Franklin House
 Independent Order of Oddfellows and Haslam Building
 Rubel House
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-4

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
 Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past  Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction  Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined in the following manner:
 Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
 Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
 Setting: The physical environment of a historic property  Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property  Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
 Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time  Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Historic American Buildings Survey
The Historic American Buildings Survey, established in 1933 as the nation’s first federal preservation program, set the standard for documenting historic architecture through a collaboration between the National Park Service, Library of Congress, and the American Institute of Architects. Designed to Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
mitigate the loss of architectural heritage, the Historic American Buildings Survey created a publicly accessible archive capturing a wide range of American building traditions. Its records support preservation, rehabilitation, and design efforts while contributing to public education and professional training. The program’s enduring impact lies in its comprehensive documentation methods, alignment with national preservation standards, and its role in cultivating future preservation professionals.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431–433) and set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and special permits required before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation. b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency (in this case, the City) to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources. Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the Statutes of CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 were used as the guidelines for this evaluation. PRC Section 5024.1 requires that any properties that can be expected to be directly or indirectly affected by a proposed project be evaluated for CRHR eligibility.

The purpose of the CRHR is to maintain listings of the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from material impairment and substantial adverse change. The term “historical resources” includes a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR; a resource included in a local register of historical resources; and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-6
agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]). The criteria for listing properties in the CRHR were expressly developed in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP.

According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource may be considered historically significant if it retains integrity and meets at least one of the following criteria. A property may be listed in the CRHR if the resource:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A unique archaeological resource is defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g) as:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing in the CRHR nor qualify as a unique archaeological resource under CEQA PRC Section 21083.2 are viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A nonunique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects” (PRC Section 21083.2[h]).

Tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074, should also be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A unique tribal cultural resource is defined in PRC Section 21074a) as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. PRC Section 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which took effect on July 1, 2015, amends PRC Section 5097.94 by adding eight new sections that relate to Native Americans and expands CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California Tribes that must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Any project that may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to consult with a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.

Consultation is beneficial because Tribes may have knowledge about the land and cultural resources that should be included in the environmental analysis for projects. The NAHC identifies Native American Tribes to be included in the process. PRC Section 21080.3.1 identifies timing and other protocols for the consultation process.

Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines tribal cultural resources as a new category of resources under CEQA. According to PRC Section 21074(a)(1), tribal cultural resources are either defined as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, or are listed in or eligible for the CRHR or a local historic register, or have been determined by the lead agency to be a tribal cultural resource. PRC Section 21084.2 establishes that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource may have a significant effect on the environment. PRC Section 21084.3(a) states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible.

Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 establishes responsibilities for local governments to involve tribal organizations in early stages of land use planning for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. The provisions of SB 18 apply only to city and county governments and not to other public agencies. California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to coordinate and consult with tribal organizations prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan. Tribal organizations would be considered eligible to consult on a project if they were to have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
The disposition of human remains is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.

According to California HSC Section 7050.5(b), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-8
remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. California HSC Section 7051(a) prohibits all persons from removing or otherwise disturbing human remains that are inadvertently discovered before their significance may be determined. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
California Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for damaging or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands, but specifically excludes the landowner.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
PRC Section 5097.5 defines the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands as a misdemeanor. c. Local Regulations
Santa Maria Municipal Code
Chapter 8-3 of the Santa Maria Municipal Code authorizes the Parks and Recreation Commission to designate places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects within the incorporated limits of the City as having historic, cultural, aesthetic or other special character or interest in accordance with the following standards.

The landmark designated shall have historical, cultural, aesthetic or special character or interest for the general public and not be limited only in interest to a special group of persons, and be at least 50 years of age.

The designation of such as a landmark under this chapter shall not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community.

The designation of such landmark shall not require the expenditure of an unreasonable amount of money to carry out the purposes of this chapter. In applying this provision it is the intent of this chapter that whenever a landmark proposed to be so designated is private property, expenditures for its upkeep, preservation, maintenance and protection shall be made by the owner thereof in all but the most exceptional cases. If upon careful review by the Recreation and Parks Commission it is proposed that public funds be expended for the preservation, restoration, maintenance or protection thereof, or any other purpose in connection with the designation, the recommendation made by the Recreation and Parks Commission to the City Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
Council shall set forth that fact, and shall set forth in full the reasons therefor, and shall include a statement setting forth as accurately as possible the estimated cost in public funds which would be so involved. The City Council in acting upon the proposed designation shall also determine whether the expenditure of public funds in connection therewith is justified. In the event that such designation would be ineffective for the preservation, restoration or protection of the proposed landmark, without such expenditure, and the City Council determines that the expenditure is not justified, the place, site, building, structure, work of art or other object which is the subject of the proposal shall not be designated an historical landmark.

The designation of such landmark shall not infringe upon the right of a private owner thereof, if there is such, to make any and all reasonable uses of such landmark which are not in conflict with the purposes of this chapter.

Resource Management Element
Archaeological resources—such as artifacts, structures, and refuse—provide crucial insight into the cultural practices, environmental adaptations, and societal changes of past human populations.

According to the City’s current Resource Management Element, the Santa Maria Valley is generally not recognized as a major archaeological or paleontological resource area due to the limited number of recorded sites, certain parts of the city exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity. Figure RME5 of the City’s current Resource Management Element shows areas west of A Street and south of Foster Road are considered to have high to moderate archaeological sensitivity, suggesting a greater potential for encountering cultural materials during ground-disturbing activities. In contrast, the portion east of A Street, between West Carmen Lane and Foster Road, is categorized as having low sensitivity, and the area north of West Carmen Lane has negligible sensitivity.

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The assessment of potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources was informed by a review of readily available information from sources including, but not limited to, the City’s list of Historical Landmarks and Objects of Historical Merit, the City’s Resource Management Element, the State Office of Historic Preservation website and the National Parks Service. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a citywide assessment of the 2045 General Plan Update.

Because this Program EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions up to 2045, this analysis relies on program-level evaluation.

On April 7, 2025 the City of Santa Maria prepared and mailed letters to six local Native American Tribes who have requested notification under AB 52 and SB 18. Under AB 52 tribes have 30 days and under SB 18 tribes have 90 days to respond and request consultation. The City has not received any request for consultation from the tribes who received the notification letter. No other tribes responded during the 30-day or 90-day period to request consultation, which elapsed on May 7th,2025 for AB 52 and on July 8th, 2025 for SB 18.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-10
Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the plan may have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it would do any of the following:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries Implementation of the plan may have a significant adverse impact on tribal cultural resources if it would do any of the following:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The significance of a cultural resource and, subsequently, the significance of any impact are determined by consideration of whether that resource can increase our knowledge of the past. The determining factors are site content and degree of preservation. A finding of archaeological significance follows the criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological Resources) states:
 (3) […] Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852).
 (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k)), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) and 5024.1.
 (b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Historical resources are “significantly” affected if there is demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its surroundings. Generally, impacts to historical resources can be mitigated to below a level of significance by following the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Guidelines Section 15064.6(b)). In some circumstances, documentation of a historical resource by way of historic narrative photographs or architectural drawings will not mitigate the impact of demolition below the level of significance (Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(2)). Preservation in place is the preferred form of mitigation for archaeological resources as it retains the relationship between artifact and context, and may avoid conflicts with groups associated with the site (Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(A)). If an archaeological resource does not meet either the historical resource or the more specific “unique archaeological resource” definition, impacts do not need to be mitigated (Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)). Where the significance of a site is unknown, it is presumed to be significant for the purpose of the EIR investigation.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ADVERSELY AFFECT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED HISTORIC-PERIOD RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLE 2045 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND THE SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL RESOURCES. WITH MITIGATION, IMPACTS TO HISTORIC-PERIOD RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all of the resources included in the NRHP, CRHR and the City’s Historical Landmarks and Objects of Historical Merit list are considered historical resources. In addition to these known historical resources, there may be other unidentified historic resources which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR or the City’s Historical Landmarks and Objects of Historical Merit list.

The 2045 General Plan Update would guide the general distribution, location, and extent of the various land uses in Santa Maria, but the plan does not propose or approve any specific development. As there is no development included in the plan, adoption of the plan would not directly alter any historical resources. The plan does include changes to land use designations with the intent of increasing density throughout certain areas of the city. These land use changes, and the increased development that could accompany them, have the potential to impact historical resources, including those already designated as historical as well as those which may be eligible in the future.

New residential, commercial, and industrial uses would be introduced through both new construction and the conversion of existing properties to different land use designations. The plan’s emphasis on increased density and clustered development increases the likelihood of redevelopment, or additional development, on already-developed lots. Future development may involve renovations, demolitions, or new construction, which could affect historical resources that have not yet been formally evaluated but may be eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or local registers under CEQA. Over the 20-year planning horizon through 2045, additional buildings will surpass the 450-year age threshold, making them potential historic resources. As a result, redevelopment activities could lead to the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of such resources.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-12
Goals and policies included in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the plan, listed below, would reduce impacts to historical, and potentially historical, resources:

Goal COS-7: Historic and cultural resources. The city’s cultural heritage is preserved and celebrated.

Policy COS-7.1: Historic, cultural, and tribal resources. Protect the city’s historic, cultural, and tribal resources through the City’s Historic Overlay Ordinance, Historic Landmark Ordinance, and proper tribal consultation practices.

Action COS-7.1.1: Review and explore opportunities for strengthening the Historic Overlay Ordinance to protect and document culturally significant sites, including tribal and historic resources.

Action COS-7.1.2: Enforce federal, State, and local regulations related to the preservation of historic and cultural resources.

Action COS-7.1.3: Avoid the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of historic resources to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Action COS-7.1.4: Support the adaptive reuse of designated and non-designated historical resources by enforcing the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and restoration, and providing technical assistance and sharing of best practices.

Policy COS-7.2: Historic, cultural, and tribal resource impact mitigation. Identify impacts of new development on historic, cultural, and tribal resources during the development and environmental review process and incorporate site-specific mitigation measures accordingly to minimize the identified impacts.

Policy COS-7.3: Tribal resource protection. Protect tribal resources by partnering with representatives of Native American tribes during planning and development activities.

Action COS-7.3.1: Partner Consult with local tribes and cultural organizations to identify and conserve cultural resources and points of interest.

Action COS-7.3.2: Continue to comply with State, regional, and local regulations pertaining to notification and engagement of Native American tribes, including AB 52 and SB 18.

Policy COS-7.4: Cultural resource access. Explore opportunities to incorporate cultural resources into parks and open spaces, enriching community access to Santa Maria's history.

Action COS-7.4.1: Develop wayfinding and educational signage for significant historical and cultural resources.

Action COS-7.4.2: Pursue grant funding to facilitate the preservation and restoration of historic sites significant to the City’s cultural identity.

Future development would also be subject to the provisions of applicable federal and State cultural resource regulations, as well as Chapter 8-3 of the City’s Municipal Code. As the plan's policies and actions may be subject to varied interpretation, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure effective implementation of Conservation and Open Space Element Actions COS-7.1.3 and COS-7.1.4. For any new development that could affect known or potential historical resources, a qualified historian must prepare a historical resource evaluation to assess possible impacts. With implementation of Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
this mitigation measure, development under the plan would have a less than significant impact on historical resources.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Historical Built Environment
If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that propose to significantly alter or demolish any historic-age features (i.e., structures determined to be over 450 years of age based on available City records, such as permitting records) shall be required to submit a historical resources evaluation prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The report shall address areas containing buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 450 years of age or older and are proposed to be altered or demolished as a part of the proposed project. The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The historical resources evaluation report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be completed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). Applicants shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential adverse impacts on historical resources by requiring the identification and evaluation of historic-age built environment features consistent with State Office of Historic Preservation guidance, and—when applicable—ensuring conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

This process would promote responsible management of significant resources through avoidance, rehabilitation, or relocation where feasible, and ensure effective implementation of Conservation and Open Space Element Actions COS-7.1.3 and COS-7.1.4. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to historical resources pursuant to §15064.5 would less than significant.

City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-14
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB OR DAMAGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLE 2045 GENERAL PLAN

POLICIES, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND THE SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. WITH MITIGATION, IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2045 General Plan Update would guide the general distribution, location, and extent of the various land uses in Santa Maria, but the plan does not propose or approve any specific development. As there is no development included in the plan, adoption of the plan would not directly impact any archaeological resources. The plan does include changes to land use designations with the intent of increasing density throughout certain areas of the city, as well as annexation of undeveloped land east of the City Limits. These land use changes, and the increased development that could accompany them, have the potential to impact known as well as previously unidentified archaeological resources.

Effects on archaeological resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on individual project site conditions and the characteristics of proposed ground disturbing activities. However, ground disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface.

Potential impacts to archaeological resources are most likely to occur on undeveloped lots, areas that have not been studied through a cultural resource investigation, or when excavation extends to depths lower than previous disturbance. Consequently, damage to or destruction of previously unknown subsurface archaeological resources could occur as a result of development facilitated by the plan.

Goals and policies included in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the plan, listed below, would reduce impacts to archaeological resources:

Goal COS-7: Historic and cultural resources. The city’s cultural heritage is preserved and celebrated.

Policy COS-7.5: Archaeological resource protection. Protect archaeological resources by requiring development to incorporate adequate mitigation to ensure the integrity of these resources.

Action COS-7.5.1: Continue to analyze project-specific impacts to archaeological resources through the development review and CEQA processes with the goal of avoiding and reducing impacts on archaeological resources.

Action COS-7.5.2: Consult with representatives of Native American tribes to ensure the appropriate treatment of archaeological resources, including cultural artifacts and human remains, if found.

These goals, policies, and actions are intended to preserve and protect known as well as previously unidentified archaeological resources. Development facilitated by the plan would be subject to the provisions of applicable federal and State cultural resource regulations listed in Section 4.4.2, Regulatory Setting. These regulations require project-specific avoidance of archaeological resources, or if an archaeological resource cannot be avoided, implementation of mitigation in accordance with applicable federal and State law regarding data collection and preservation of archaeological Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15
resources. However, there is potential for historic-aged and prehistoric archaeological resources to exist throughout the plan area which could be damaged or destroyed during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan’s impact on archaeological resources is potentially significant and Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) through CUL-2(c) are required.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-2(a) Archaeological Resources Assessment
If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that involve ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading) shall be required to submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects which include development in archaeologically sensitive areas, as designated by the City, to locate any surface cultural materials.

If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist.

The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.

CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discoveries
For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall be required to retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts, may be determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall consult City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-16
with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.

CUL-2(c) Workers Environmental Awareness Program
For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall ensure a City-approved archaeologist provides a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) through CUL-2(c) would reduce potential adverse impacts on archaeological resources by requiring identification and evaluation of any archaeological resources that may be present prior to construction and by providing steps for the evaluation and protection of unanticipated finds encountered during construction. This process would promote responsible management of archaeological resources through avoidance, rehabilitation, or relocation where feasible, and ensure effective implementation of Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS-7.5 and Actions COS-7.5.1 and COS-7.5.2. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) through CUL-2(c), impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 would less than significant.

Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD RESULT IN DISTURBANCE OF HUMAN REMAINS. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7050.5 AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5097.8 WOULD ENSURE THIS POTENTIAL IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts, and the Santa Maria Cemetery lies within the plan area. Excavations during construction activities facilitated by the plan could have the potential to disturb human remains in the plan area which could include Native American burial sites.

Pursuant to California HSC Section 7050.5, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be notified immediately, and no further disturbance would occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the County Coroner would notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner would reinter the remains in a location that would not be affected by future ground-disturbing activities. Development facilitated by the Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-17
plan would comply with the provisions set forth pursuant to California HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98. Therefore, although it is possible ground-disturbing activities related to project construction could disturb human remains beneath the project site, adherence to California HSC Section 7050.5 would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required because impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 4: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Impact CUL-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB OR DAMAGE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLE 2045 GENERAL PLAN

POLICIES, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND THE SANTA MARIA MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. WITH MITIGATION, IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in the Methodology section, the City of Santa Maria sent notification letters on April 7, 2025, to six local tribes under AB 52 and SB 18, but no requests for consultation were received during the respective 30- and 90-day response periods, which ended on May 7 and July 8, 2025.

Potential effects on tribal cultural resources can only be fully assessed once a specific project is proposed, as impacts are highly dependent on site-specific conditions and the nature and extent of ground-disturbing activities. Nevertheless, development facilitated by the plan may involve ground disturbance in areas that have not been subject to prior cultural resource studies, creating the potential to disturb or destroy previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. These impacts are more likely to occur on undeveloped parcels or in locations where excavation reaches below previously disturbed soils. As such, inadvertent impacts to tribal cultural resources could result from future development under the plan.

Future development facilitated under the plan that is subject to CEQA would be required to comply with the provisions of AB 52, including formal consultation with California Native American Tribes traditionally affiliated with the area, prior to project implementation. In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether project-specific substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources would occur along with identification of appropriate, project-specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Due to the programmatic nature of the plan, it is not possible to fully determine impacts. Impacts on tribal cultural resources can only be accurately City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update

4.4-18
evaluated when a specific project is proposed, given that potential effects vary based on individual site conditions and the scope of planned ground-disturbing work. Although no specific tribal cultural resources eligible for the NRHP, CRHP or local register were identified as being impacted by the plan, it is possible for tribal cultural resources to exist throughout the plan area. Any future project implementation would require project-specific tribal cultural resources identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be incorporated.

Policies included in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the plan, listed below, would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources:

Policy COS-7.3: Tribal resource protection. Protect tribal resources by partnering with representatives of Native American tribes during planning and development activities.

Action COS-7.3.1: Partner Consult with local tribes and cultural organizations to identify and conserve cultural resources and points of interest.

Action COS-7.3.2: Continue to comply with State, regional, and local regulations pertaining to notification and engagement of Native American tribes, including AB 52 and SB 18.

Policy COS-7.1: Historic, cultural, and tribal resources. Protect the City’s historic, cultural, and tribal resources through the City’s Historic Overlay Ordinance, Historic Landmark Ordinance, and proper tribal consultation practices.

Action COS-7.1.2: Enforce federal, State, and local regulations related to the preservation of historic and cultural resources.

Policy COS-7.2: Historic, cultural, and tribal resource impact mitigation. Identify impacts of new development on historic, cultural, and tribal resources during the development and environmental review process and incorporate site-specific mitigation measures accordingly to minimize the identified impacts.

These policies and actions are intended to preserve and protect known and previously unidentified tribal resources. In addition to these local policies, development facilitated by the plan would be subject to the provisions of applicable federal and State tribal resource regulations, listed in Section

4.4.2, Regulatory Setting.

Development facilitated by plan would undergo project-specific tribal cultural resource consultation pursuant to the requirements of PRC Section 21084 and Policy COS-7.3, Tribal resource protection.

There is always potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to exist throughout the plan area which could be damaged or destroyed during ground-disturbing activities. The following measures are included to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant, knowing that upon recognition, avoidance would be the preferred method when feasible. Therefore, the plan’s impact on tribal cultural resources is potentially significant and Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and CUL-4(b) are required.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-4(a) Workers Environmental Awareness Program
For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to invite a City-approved archaeologist to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-19
training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The City would also invite consulting Tribe(s) to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers.