Agenda — Santa Maria City Council, May 5, 2026 (part 8 of 10)

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. The Project site contains Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland as designated by DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and a portion of the project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract.

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
The conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction and impact to California’s agricultural land resources. The Department generally advises discussion of the following in any environmental review for the loss or conversion of agricultural land:
• Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed project. • Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land-use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.
• Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
• Implementation of any City or County Agricultural Mitigation Plans, Programs, or Policies.
• Proposed mitigation measures for impacted agricultural lands within the proposed project area.
• The project’s compatibility with lands within an agricultural preserve and/or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.

WILLIAMSON ACT
Where, as here, the project site is located on land subject to a Williamson Act contract, the Department advises that the environmental review discuss the compatibility of the project with the contract and local Williamson Act program requirements.

MITIGATING AGRICULTURAL LAND LOSS OR CONVERSION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Department advises that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land. An agricultural conservation easement is one potential method for mitigating loss or conversion of agricultural land. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15370 [mitigation includes “compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.”]; see also King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814.)

Page 3 of 3 ends

Mitigation through agricultural conservation easements can take at least two forms: the outright purchase of easements or the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural easements. The conversion of agricultural land may be viewed as an impact of at least regional significance. Hence, the search for replacement lands may not need to be limited strictly to lands within the project’s surrounding area. A helpful source for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland mitigation policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance. The guidebook can be found at:

California Council of Land Trusts
Of course, the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation, and the Department urges consideration of any other feasible measures necessary to mitigate project impacts.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Maria General Plan Update. Please provide the Department with notices of any future hearing dates as well as any staff reports pertaining to this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Farl Grundy, Associate Environmental Planner via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Monique Wilber
Conservation Program Support Supervisor
Santa Maria General Plan Update Scoping Meeting
Three attendees joined us in the room for the presentation and subsequent discussion (at the Santa Maria Public Library).

Speakers:

1. Question from one speaker about what is going to happen with Mahoney Ranch. a. Dana Eady response: The GP Update isn’t proposing to change the land use for this property. Notes question about potential future development due to current concerns about CTS/sensitive species on the property.
b. Commenter follow up: Discussion of potential mitigation banking/land swap for addressing impacts and allowing potential development of the property.

2. A second speaker notes the 900+ acres proposed for annexation, and asks if there a phasing plan for development of these annexation areas (e.g, would it be from north to south?).
a. Dana Eady response: Dana said there is not a current plan for the order of future development – likely landowner/developer driven. Discussed the high-level planning process for potential future development of annexation areas, including potential need for future project-specific environmental review. Commenter follow up:
question about whether it would be helpful for the City to have information from landowners about what they may consider bringing forward. Dana Eady/Rincon response: Assumptions for these areas in the EIR will be based on current direction from City Council (CC identified annexation areas being considered, and has expressed a desire for a mix of uses, which informs the EIR PD/projections, and assumptions that will guide the EIR analysis).

Appendix B
CalEEMod Outputs
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
1 / 32
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
2 / 32

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
3 / 32

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
4 / 32

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
5 / 32

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
6 / 32

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santa Maria GPU (Net New)
Operational Year 2045
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.90
Precipitation (days) 10.0
Location Santa Maria, CA, USA
County Santa Barbara
City Santa Maria
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3382
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
16,140 Dwelling Unit 425 15,494,400 0.00 0.00 58,265 —
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
7 / 32
General Office 64,154 1000sqft 1,473 64,154,000 0.00 0.00 — — Building
Industrial Park 305 1000sqft 7.00 304,920 0.00 0.00 — — City Park 33.0 Acre 33.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2,601 2,518 611 5,409 8.21 45.0 614 659 43.6 155 199 66,208 1,933,88 9 2,000,09
8 4,329 87.3 540 2,134,87
0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2,017 1,977 587 1,609 7.91 39.6 614 653 39.5 155 195 66,208 1,910,97 4 1,977,18
3 4,328 87.8 351 2,111,90
9 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2,305 2,244 602 3,450 8.02 42.3 610 652 41.5 154 196 66,208 1,918,38 9 1,984,59
8 4,328 87.9 430 2,119,42
0 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 421 410 110 630 1.46 7.72 111 119 7.58 28.2 35.8 10,962 317,611 328,573 717 14.5 71.2 350,894 Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
8 / 32

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 55.3 42.5 85.7 1,314 5.00 1.66 614 615 1.56 155 157 — 508,907 508,907 9.31 13.9 193 513,467 Area 2,491 2,448 32.0 3,724 0.21 5.39 — 5.39 4.07 — 4.07 0.00 13,976 13,976 0.59 0.12 — 14,027 Energy 54.9 27.5 493 372 3.00 38.0 — 38.0 38.0 — 38.0 — 1,374,60 1 1,374,60
1 179 16.4 — 1,383,95
3 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 25,729 36,405 62,134 94.3 56.9 — 81,455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 40,479 0.00 40,479 4,046 0.00 — 141,622 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 346 346
Total 2,601 2,518 611 5,409 8.21 45.0 614 659 43.6 155 199 66,208 1,933,88 9 2,000,09
8 4,329 87.3 540 2,134,87
0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 54.3 41.8 93.8 1,237 4.91 1.66 614 615 1.56 155 157 — 499,969 499,969 9.08 14.5 5.01 504,532 Area 1,908 1,908 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 54.9 27.5 493 372 3.00 38.0 — 38.0 38.0 — 38.0 — 1,374,60 1 1,374,60
1 179 16.4 — 1,383,95
3 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 25,729 36,405 62,134 94.3 56.9 — 81,455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 40,479 0.00 40,479 4,046 0.00 — 141,622 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 346 346
Total 2,017 1,977 587 1,609 7.91 39.6 614 653 39.5 155 195 66,208 1,910,97 4 1,977,18
3 4,328 87.8 351 2,111,90
9 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 54.6 42.0 93.7 1,242 4.92 1.66 610 611 1.56 154 156 — 500,491 500,491 9.16 14.5 83.5 505,126 Area 2,196 2,174 15.8 1,836 0.10 2.66 — 2.66 2.01 — 2.01 0.00 6,893 6,893 0.29 0.06 — 6,917 Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
9 / 32
Energy 54.9 27.5 493 372 3.00 38.0 — 38.0 38.0 — 38.0 — 1,374,60 1,374,60 179 16.4 — 1,383,95 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 25,729 36,405 62,134 94.3 56.9 — 81,455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 40,479 0.00 40,479 4,046 0.00 — 141,622 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 346 346
Total 2,305 2,244 602 3,450 8.02 42.3 610 652 41.5 154 196 66,208 1,918,38 9 1,984,59
8 4,328 87.9 430 2,119,42
0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 9.97 7.66 17.1 227 0.90 0.30 111 112 0.28 28.2 28.5 — 82,862 82,862 1.52 2.40 13.8 83,629 Area 401 397 2.88 335 0.02 0.48 — 0.48 0.37 — 0.37 0.00 1,141 1,141 0.05 0.01 — 1,145 Energy 10.0 5.01 90.0 67.9 0.55 6.93 — 6.93 6.93 — 6.93 — 227,581 227,581 29.6 2.71 — 229,129 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4,260 6,027 10,287 15.6 9.42 — 13,486 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 6,702 0.00 6,702 670 0.00 — 23,447 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 57.3 57.3
Total 421 410 110 630 1.46 7.72 111 119 7.58 28.2 35.8 10,962 317,611 328,573 717 14.5 71.2 350,894

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
10 / 32
Apartme
Mid Rise
———————————— 26,770 26,770 4.33 0.52— 27,035
General
Office
Building
———————————— 748,300 748,300 121 14.7— 755,700
Industria l
Park
———————————— 3,557 3,557 0.58 0.07— 3,592
City
Park
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 778,627 778,627 126 15.3— 786,326
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 26,770 26,770 4.33 0.52— 27,035
General
Office
Building
———————————— 748,300 748,300 121 14.7— 755,700
Industria l
Park
———————————— 3,557 3,557 0.58 0.07— 3,592
City
Park
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 778,627 778,627 126 15.3— 786,326
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 4,432 4,432 0.72 0.09— 4,476
General
Office
Building
———————————— 123,890 123,890 20.0 2.43— 125,115
Industria l
Park
———————————— 589 589 0.10 0.01— 595
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
11 / 32
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 128,911 128,911 20.9 2.53 — 130,185

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

11.9 5.96 102 43.4 0.65 8.24 — 8.24 8.24 — 8.24 — 129,348 129,348 11.4 0.24 — 129,707 General
Office
Building

42.8 21.4 389 327 2.34 29.6 — 29.6 29.6 — 29.6 — 464,418 464,418 41.1 0.87 — 465,706 Industria
l
Park

0.20 0.10 1.85 1.55 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,207 2,207 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,213 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 54.9 27.5 493 372 3.00 38.0 — 38.0 38.0 — 38.0 — 595,973 595,973 52.7 1.12 — 597,626 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

11.9 5.96 102 43.4 0.65 8.24 — 8.24 8.24 — 8.24 — 129,348 129,348 11.4 0.24 — 129,707 General
Office
Building

42.8 21.4 389 327 2.34 29.6 — 29.6 29.6 — 29.6 — 464,418 464,418 41.1 0.87 — 465,706 Industria
l
Park

0.20 0.10 1.85 1.55 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,207 2,207 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,213 Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
12 / 32
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 54.9 27.5 493 372 3.00 38.0 — 38.0 38.0 — 38.0 — 595,973 595,973 52.7 1.12 — 597,626 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.18 1.09 18.6 7.91 0.12 1.50 — 1.50 1.50 — 1.50 — 21,415 21,415 1.90 0.04 — 21,474 General
Office
Building

7.81 3.91 71.0 59.7 0.43 5.40 — 5.40 5.40 — 5.40 — 76,890 76,890 6.80 0.14 — 77,103 Industria
l
Park

0.04 0.02 0.34 0.28 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 365 365 0.03 < 0.005 — 366 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 10.0 5.01 90.0 67.9 0.55 6.93 — 6.93 6.93 — 6.93 — 98,670 98,670 8.73 0.19 — 98,944

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
1,711 1,711 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
197 197 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
13 / 32
Landsca
Equipment
583 540 32.0 3,724 0.21 5.39 — 5.39 4.07 — 4.07 — 13,976 13,976 0.59 0.12 — 14,027 Total 2,491 2,448 32.0 3,724 0.21 5.39 — 5.39 4.07 — 4.07 0.00 13,976 13,976 0.59 0.12 — 14,027 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
1,711 1,711 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
197 197 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1,908 1,908 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
312 312 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

35.9 35.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

52.5 48.6 2.88 335 0.02 0.48 — 0.48 0.37 — 0.37 — 1,141 1,141 0.05 0.01 — 1,145 Total 401 397 2.88 335 0.02 0.48 — 0.48 0.37 — 0.37 0.00 1,141 1,141 0.05 0.01 — 1,145

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
14 / 32
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,212 1,715 2,926 4.44 2.68 — 3,836 General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 24,367 34,478 58,844 89.3 53.9 — 77,141 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 151 213 364 0.55 0.33 — 477
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 25,729 36,405 62,134 94.3 56.9 — 81,455 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,212 1,715 2,926 4.44 2.68 — 3,836 General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 24,367 34,478 58,844 89.3 53.9 — 77,141 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 151 213 364 0.55 0.33 — 477
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 25,729 36,405 62,134 94.3 56.9 — 81,455 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
15 / 32
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — 201 284 484 0.74 0.44 — 635 nts
Mid Rise
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 4,034 5,708 9,742 14.8 8.93 — 12,772 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.9 35.3 60.2 0.09 0.06 — 79.0
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4,260 6,027 10,287 15.6 9.42 — 13,486

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 8,119 0.00 8,119 811 0.00 — 28,405 General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 32,155 0.00 32,155 3,214 0.00 — 112,499 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 204 0.00 204 20.4 0.00 — 713
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.53 0.00 1.53 0.15 0.00 — 5.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 40,479 0.00 40,479 4,046 0.00 — 141,622 Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
16 / 32
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 8,119 0.00 8,119 811 0.00 — 28,405 General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 32,155 0.00 32,155 3,214 0.00 — 112,499 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 204 0.00 204 20.4 0.00 — 713
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.53 0.00 1.53 0.15 0.00 — 5.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 40,479 0.00 40,479 4,046 0.00 — 141,622 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,344 0.00 1,344 134 0.00 — 4,703 General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 5,324 0.00 5,324 532 0.00 — 18,625 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.7 0.00 33.7 3.37 0.00 — 118
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 — 0.89
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 6,702 0.00 6,702 670 0.00 — 23,447

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
17 / 32
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 111 111
General
Office
Building
———————————————— 156 156
Industria l
Park
———————————————— 79.4 79.4
City
Park
———————————————— 0.00 0.00
Total———————————————— 346 346
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 111 111
General
Office
Building
———————————————— 156 156
Industria l
Park
———————————————— 79.4 79.4
City
Park
———————————————— 0.00 0.00
Total———————————————— 346 346
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 18.4 18.4
General
Office
Building
———————————————— 25.8 25.8
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
18 / 32
Industria
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.1 13.1
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 57.3 57.3

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
19 / 32
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
20 / 32
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
21 / 32
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
22 / 32
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 873,403 873,403 873,403 318,792,051

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
23 / 32

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
31376160 10,458,720 96,688,380 32,229,460 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 47,901,841 204 0.0330 0.0040 403,601,456 General Office Building 1,338,982,138 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,449,107,575 Industrial Park 6,364,099 204 0.0330 0.0040 6,887,519
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 567,047,831 0.00
General Office Building 11,402,330,869 0.00
Industrial Park 70,512,750 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
24 / 32

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 15,065 —
General Office Building 59,663 —
Industrial Park 378 —
City Park 2.84 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
25 / 32

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
26 / 32

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.13 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.70 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 47.0 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
27 / 32
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
28 / 32

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 10.6
AQ-PM 10.0
AQ-DPM 63.0
Drinking Water 11.2
Lead Risk Housing 99.5
Pesticides 94.3
Toxic Releases 11.0
Traffic 35.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 58.3
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 86.5
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 86.7
Cardio-vascular 52.0
Low Birth Weights 58.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 74.8
Housing 73.7
Linguistic 82.3
Poverty 68.8
Unemployment 11.9
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
29 / 32

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 16.7842936
Employed 26.07468241
Median HI 19.58167586
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 21.46798409
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 24.25253433
Transportation —
Auto Access 17.51571924
Active commuting 31.00218144
Social —
2-parent households 26.42114718
Voting 71.23059156
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 39.92044142
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.58398563
Supermarket access 59.20698062
Tree canopy 1.73232388
Housing —
Homeownership 21.2498396
Housing habitability 23.77774926
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 59.43795714 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 18.86308225
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
30 / 32
Uncrowded housing 12.81919672
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 9.444373155
Arthritis 44.8
Asthma ER Admissions 32.8
High Blood Pressure 74.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 57.8
Asthma 16.4
Coronary Heart Disease 34.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 16.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 47.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.7
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 50.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 66.1
Mental Health Not Good 18.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
Obesity 26.8
Pedestrian Injuries 59.4
Physical Health Not Good 24.5
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 40.3
Current Smoker 18.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 31.5
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
31 / 32
Children 1.1
Elderly 85.6
English Speaking 30.5
Foreign-born 45.8
Outdoor Workers 1.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 66.6
Traffic Density 39.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 89.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 53.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 67.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 23.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

Santa Maria GPU (Net New) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025
32 / 32

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Population based on a pph of 3.61.

Operations: Hearths No fireplaces or wood stoves
Operations: Architectural Coatings SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 nonflat coating Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 1 / 27
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 2 / 27

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 3 / 27

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 4 / 27

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 5 / 27

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 6 / 27

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction)
Operational Year 2045
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.90
Precipitation (days) 10.0
Location Santa Maria, CA, USA
County Santa Barbara
City Santa Maria
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3382
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
General Office
Building
20,170 1000sqft 463 20,170,000 0.00 0.00 — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 7 / 27

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 656 637 135 1,064 1.11 11.0 39.2 50.1 10.6 9.91 20.5 17,770 428,192 445,962 1,090 22.8 61.4 480,059 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 500 492 128 182 1.05 9.41 39.2 48.6 9.40 9.91 19.3 17,770 424,014 441,785 1,090 22.8 49.4 475,869 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 577 563 132 615 1.07 10.2 38.9 49.1 9.98 9.85 19.8 17,770 425,827 443,597 1,090 22.8 54.4 477,692 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 105 103 24.1 112 0.20 1.86 7.10 8.96 1.82 1.80 3.62 2,942 70,500 73,443 180 3.77 9.00 79,087

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.53 2.71 5.47 83.8 0.32 0.11 39.2 39.3 0.10 9.91 10.0 — 32,467 32,467 0.59 0.89 12.3 32,758 Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 8 / 27
Area 639 627 7.38 877 0.05 1.56 — 1.56 1.18 — 1.18 — 3,607 3,607 0.15 0.03 — 3,620 Energy 13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 381,278 381,278 51.0 4.89 — 384,009 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Total 656 637 135 1,064 1.11 11.0 39.2 50.1 10.6 9.91 20.5 17,770 428,192 445,962 1,090 22.8 61.4 480,059 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.46 2.66 5.98 78.9 0.31 0.11 39.2 39.3 0.10 9.91 10.0 — 31,896 31,896 0.58 0.93 0.32 32,188 Area 483 483 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 381,278 381,278 51.0 4.89 — 384,009 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Total 500 492 128 182 1.05 9.41 39.2 48.6 9.40 9.91 19.3 17,770 424,014 441,785 1,090 22.8 49.4 475,869 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.48 2.68 5.98 79.2 0.31 0.11 38.9 39.0 0.10 9.85 9.95 — 31,930 31,930 0.58 0.93 5.33 32,226 Area 560 554 3.64 433 0.03 0.77 — 0.77 0.58 — 0.58 — 1,779 1,779 0.07 0.02 — 1,785 Energy 13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 381,278 381,278 51.0 4.89 — 384,009 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Total 577 563 132 615 1.07 10.2 38.9 49.1 9.98 9.85 19.8 17,770 425,827 443,597 1,090 22.8 54.4 477,692 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.64 0.49 1.09 14.5 0.06 0.02 7.10 7.12 0.02 1.80 1.82 — 5,286 5,286 0.10 0.15 0.88 5,335 Area 102 101 0.66 79.0 < 0.005 0.14 — 0.14 0.11 — 0.11 — 295 295 0.01 < 0.005 — 296 Energy 2.46 1.23 22.3 18.8 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 — 63,125 63,125 8.44 0.81 — 63,577 Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 9 / 27
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1,268 1,795 3,063 4.65 2.81 — 4,015 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,674 0.00 1,674 167 0.00 — 5,856 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.12 8.12
Total 105 103 24.1 112 0.20 1.86 7.10 8.96 1.82 1.80 3.62 2,942 70,500 73,443 180 3.77 9.00 79,087

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 146,013 146,013 12.9 0.27 — 146,418 Total 13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 146,013 146,013 12.9 0.27 — 146,418 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 146,013 146,013 12.9 0.27 — 146,418 Total 13.5 6.73 122 103 0.73 9.30 — 9.30 9.30 — 9.30 — 146,013 146,013 12.9 0.27 — 146,418 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

2.46 1.23 22.3 18.8 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 — 24,174 24,174 2.14 0.05 — 24,241 Total 2.46 1.23 22.3 18.8 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 — 24,174 24,174 2.14 0.05 — 24,241

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 11 / 27
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
432 432 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

51.2 51.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
156 144 7.38 877 0.05 1.56 — 1.56 1.18 — 1.18 — 3,607 3,607 0.15 0.03 — 3,620 Total 639 627 7.38 877 0.05 1.56 — 1.56 1.18 — 1.18 — 3,607 3,607 0.15 0.03 — 3,620 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
432 432 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

51.2 51.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 483 483 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

78.8 78.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

9.35 9.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 12 / 27
Landsca
Equipment

14.1 13.0 0.66 79.0 < 0.005 0.14 — 0.14 0.11 — 0.11 — 295 295 0.01 < 0.005 — 296 Total 102 101 0.66 79.0 < 0.005 0.14 — 0.14 0.11 — 0.11 — 295 295 0.01 < 0.005 — 296

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7,661 10,840 18,501 28.1 16.9 — 24,253 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,268 1,795 3,063 4.65 2.81 — 4,015 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,268 1,795 3,063 4.65 2.81 — 4,015

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 13 / 27
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10,109 0.00 10,109 1,010 0.00 — 35,370 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,674 0.00 1,674 167 0.00 — 5,856 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,674 0.00 1,674 167 0.00 — 5,856

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 14 / 27
General — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Office
Building
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.1 49.1
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.12 8.12
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.12 8.12

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 16 / 27
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 17 / 27
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 18 / 27
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 19 / 27
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Office Building 420,975,617 204 0.0330 0.0040 455,599,024

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Office Building 3,584,889,697 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Office Building 18,758 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 20 / 27
General Office R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 21 / 27

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 22 / 27

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 23 / 27
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 10.6
AQ-PM 10.0
AQ-DPM 63.0
Drinking Water 11.2
Lead Risk Housing 99.5
Pesticides 94.3
Toxic Releases 11.0
Traffic 35.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 58.3
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 86.5
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 86.7
Cardio-vascular 52.0
Low Birth Weights 58.8
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 24 / 27
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 74.8
Housing 73.7
Linguistic 82.3
Poverty 68.8
Unemployment 11.9

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 16.7842936
Employed 26.07468241
Median HI 19.58167586
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 21.46798409
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 24.25253433
Transportation —
Auto Access 17.51571924
Active commuting 31.00218144
Social —
2-parent households 26.42114718
Voting 71.23059156
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 39.92044142
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.58398563
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 25 / 27
Supermarket access 59.20698062
Tree canopy 1.73232388
Housing —
Homeownership 21.2498396
Housing habitability 23.77774926
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 59.43795714 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 18.86308225
Uncrowded housing 12.81919672
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 9.444373155
Arthritis 44.8
Asthma ER Admissions 32.8
High Blood Pressure 74.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 57.8
Asthma 16.4
Coronary Heart Disease 34.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 16.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 47.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.7
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 50.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 66.1
Mental Health Not Good 18.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
Obesity 26.8
Pedestrian Injuries 59.4
Physical Health Not Good 24.5
Stroke 34.3
Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 26 / 27
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 40.3
Current Smoker 18.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 31.5
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 1.1
Elderly 85.6
English Speaking 30.5
Foreign-born 45.8
Outdoor Workers 1.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 66.6
Traffic Density 39.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 89.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 53.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 67.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 23.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Santa Maria GPU (Net Reduction) Detailed Report, 8/6/2025 27 / 27
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Architectural Coatings SBCAPCD RULE 323.1 nonflat coating Appendix C
Potential to Occur Table
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in
Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Astragalus didymocarpus var.
milesianus
Miles' milk-vetch
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal scrub. Clay soils. Elevations: 65- 295ft. (20-90m.) Blooms Mar-Jun. Low Potential
Suitable coastal scrub habitat does not occur in the
study area. The elevation range of the study area is
within the expected range of the species. The most
recent CNDDB documented occurrence of the species
within 2 miles of the study area is from 1935.

Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland. Sandy. Elevations: 200-3281ft.
(61 - 1000 m.) Blooms Feb-May.

Low Potential
Suitable valley and foothill grassland occurs in the study area. The elevation range of the study area is within the expected range of the species. However, there are no
CNDDB documented occurrences of the species within 2
miles of the study area.

Cirsium loncholepis
La Graciosa thistle
FE/ST
G5T1/S1
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub,
Marshes and swamps (brackish), Valley and foothill
grassland. Mesic, Sandy. Elevations: 13-723ft. (4 - 220 m.) Blooms May-Aug.

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.

Maritimus
salt marsh bird's-beak
FE/SE
G4?T1/S1
1B.2
Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt).

Limited to the higher zones of salt marsh habitat.

Elevations: 0-98ft. (0 - 30 m.) Blooms May-Oct(Nov)
Low Potential
Suitable higher zones of salt marsh habitat is not
present in the study area. The elevation range of the
study area is within the expected range of the species.

However, there are no CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 2 miles of the study
area.

Deinandra paniculata
paniculate tarplant
None/None
G4/S4

4.2 Annual herb. Coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Usually in vernally mesic sites.

Sometimes in vernal pools or on mima mounds near
them. Elevations: 80-3085ft. (25-940m.) Blooms
(Mar)Apr-Nov.

Low Potential
Suitable vernal pool habitat may occur in the study
area. The elevation range of the study area is within the expected range of the species. However, there are no
CNDDB documented occurrences of the species within 2
miles of the study area.

Delphinium parryi ssp.
blochmaniae
dune larkspur
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, coastal dunes. On rocky
areas and dunes. Elevations: 0-655ft. (0-200m.) Blooms
Apr-Jun.

Low Potential
Suitable chaparral and coastal dune habitat does not
occur in the study area. Suitable rocky areas do not
occur in the study area. The elevation range of the
study area is within the expected range of the species.

The most recent CNDDB documented occurrence of the
species within 2 miles of the study area is from 1943.

Plants and Lichens
Erigeron blochmaniae
Blochman's leafy daisy
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Coastal dunes, coastal
scrub. Sand dunes and hills. Elevations: 10-150ft. (3-
45m.) Blooms Jun-Aug.

Low Potential
Suitable coastal dune and coastal scrub habitat does not occur in the study area. Suitable hills may occur in the study area. The elevation range of the study area is
within the expected range of the species. The most
recent CNDDB documented occurrence of the species
within 2 miles of the study area is from 1991.

Eriogonum elegans
elegant wild buckwheat
None/None
G4G5/S4S5

4.3 Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Usually in sandy or gravelly substrates; often in washes, sometimes roadsides. Elevations: 655-
5005ft. (200-1525m.) Blooms May-Nov.

No Potential
Suitable valley and foothill grassland and wash habitats occur in the study area. However, the elevation range of the study area is outside of the expected range of the
species. There are no CNDDB documented occurrences
of the species within 2 miles of the study area.

Erysimum suffrutescens
suffrutescent wallflower
None/None
G3/S3

4.2 Perennial herb. Chaparral, coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Coastal dunes and bluffs.

Elevations: 0-490ft. (0-150m.) Blooms Jan-Jul(Aug).

Low Potential
Suitable chaparral, coastal bluff scurb, coastal dune, and coastal scrub habitat does not occur in the study area.

The elevation range of the study area is within the
expected range of the species. However, there are no
CNDDB documented occurences of the species within 2
miles of the study area.

Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
mesa horkelia
None/None
G4T1/S1
1B.1
USFS S
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Sandy or gravelly sites. Elevations: 230- 2660ft. (70-810m.) Blooms Feb-Jul(Sep).

Low Potential
Suitable chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal
scrub habitats do not occur in the study area. Suitable sandy or gravelly sites may occur in the study area. The elevation range of the study area is within the expected range of the species. The most recent CNDDB
documented occurrence of the species within 2 miles of
the study area is from 1895.

Layia erubescens
blushing layia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub. Openings, Sandy 10-
245m. Blooms (Feb)Mar-May(Jun). Low Potential
Suitable coastal dune and coastal scrub habitat does not occur in the study area. The elevation range of the
study area is within the expected range of the species.

The most recent CNDDB documented occurrence of the
species within 2 miles of the study area is from 1937.

Leptosiphon grandiflorus
large-flowered leptosiphon
None/None
G3G4/S3S4

4.2 Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Open, grassy flats, generally sandy soil. 5-.

Elevations: 15-4005ft. (5-1220m.) Blooms Apr-Aug.

Low Potential
Suitable valley and foothill grassland habitat occurs in the study area. The elevation range of the study area is within the expected range of the species. However,
there are no CNDDB documented occurrences of the
species within 2 miles of the study area.

Lessingia tenuis
spring lessingia
None/None
G4/S4

4.3 Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest. Openings. Elevations: 985-
7055ft. (300-2150m.) Blooms May-Jul.

No Potential
Suitable chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower
montane coniferous forest habitats do not occur in the
study area. The elevation range of the study area is not within the expected range of the species. There are no
CNDDB documented occurrences of the species within 2
miles of the study area.

Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuata
southern curly-leaved monardella
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub. Sandy soils. Elevations: 0-985ft. (0- 300m.) Blooms Apr-Sep.

Low Potential
Suitable chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dune,
and coastal scrub habitats do not occur in the study
area. The elevation range of the study area is within the expected range of the species. The most recent CNDDB
documented occurrence of the species within 2 miles of
the study area is from 1895.

Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia
FT/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, Marshes and swamps (shallow
freshwater), Playas, Vernal pools. San Diego hardpan
and San Diego claypan vernal pools; in swales and
vernal pools, often surrouded by other habitat types.

Elevations: 49-2789 ft. (15-850 m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

Low Potential
Suitable vernal pool habitat may be present in the study area. The elevation range of the study area is within the expected range of the species. However, there are no
CNDDB documented occurrences of the species within 2
miles of the study area.

Rorippa gambellii
Gambel's watercress
FE/ST
G1/S1
1B.1
Marshes and swamps (brackish, freshwater).

Freshwater and brackish marshes at the margins of
lakes and along streams, in or just above the water
level. Elevations: 16-1083t. (5-330 m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

No Potential
Suitable marsh and swamp habitat do not occur in the
study area. The elevation range of the study area is
within the expected range of the species. However,
there are no CNDDB documented occurrences of the
species within 2 miles of the study area.

Senecio blochmaniae
Blochman's ragwort
None/None
G3/S3

4.2 Perennial herb. Coastal dunes. Elevations: 0-330ft. (0- 100m.) Blooms May-Oct. No Potential
Suitable coastal dune habitat does not occur in the
study area. The elevation range of the study area is
within the expected range of the species. However,
there are no CNDDB documented occurrences of the
species within 2 miles of the study area.

Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/None
G3/S3
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains, in astatic
rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstonedepression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools.

Moderate Potential
Suitable vernal pool habitat may occur in the study
area. There are 3 recent CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area from 2006 and 2010.

Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California
overwintering population
FPT/None
G4T1T2Q/S2
USFS S
Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby.

Moderate Potential
Suitable winter roost sites may occur in the study area.

There is a recent CNDDB documented occurrence of the
species within 5 miles of the study area from 2022.

Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
FE/None
G3/S3

CDFW SSC
Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth
of the Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower
stream reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels.

No Potential
Suitable brackish water habitat does not occur in the
study area. There are no CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area.

Ambystoma californiense pop. 2
California tiger salamander - Santa
Barbara County DPS
FE/ST
G2G3T2/S2

CDFW WL
Lives in vacant or mammal-occupied burrows
throughout most of the year; in grassland, savanna, or
open woodland habitats. Need underground refuges,
especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding.

Moderate Potential
Suitable vernal pool and upland habitats may occur in
the study area. However, the most recent CNDDB
documented occurrence of the species within 5 miles of
the study area is from 1995.

Anaxyrus californicus
arroyo toad
FE/None
G2G3/S2

CDFW SSC
Semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams,
including valley-foothill and desert riparian, desert
wash, etc. Rivers with sandy banks, willows,
cottonwoods, and sycamores; loose, gravelly areas of
streams in drier parts of range.

Moderate Potential
Suitable wash and river habitats occur in the study area.

However, the most recent CNDDB documented
occurrence of the species within 5 miles of the study
area is from 1992.

Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
None/SE
G3/S3

CDFW SSC
USFS S
Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis.

No Potential
Suitable aquatic habitat is likely not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of
the species within 5 miles of the study area.

Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3

CDFW SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of
deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water
for larval development. Must have access to estivation
habitat.

Moderate Potential
Suitable lowland and foothill habitats in or near
permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby,
or emergent riparian vegetation does not occur in the
study area. There is a recent CNDDB documented
occurrence of the species within 5 miles of the study
area from 2003.

Fishes
Amphibians
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
FPT/None
G2G3/S3S4

CDFW SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.

Moderate Potential
Suitable grassland and vernal pool habitats may occur in the study area. There are 3 recent CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area from 2001 and 2004.

Actinemys pallida
southwestern pond turtle
FPT/None
G2G3/SNR

CDFW SSC
USFS S
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. Occurs
in southern California from Monterey County south to
Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties into
northern Baja California, Mexico.

Low Potential
Suitable aquatic habitat is likely not present in the study area. The most recent CNDDB documented occurrence
of the species within 5 miles of the study area is from 1995.

Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
None/None
G3/S2S3

CDFW SSC
USFS S
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.

Moderate Potential
Suitable sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation with high moisture content may be present
in the study area. There are 5 recent CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area from 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016, and
2019.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
None/None
G4/S4

CDFW SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low
bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover,
patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

Moderate Potential
Suitable sandy wash habitat is present in the study area.

There are 3 recent CNDDB documented occurrences of
the species within 5 miles of the study area from 2008
and 2015.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None/ST
G1G2/S2

CDFW SSC

USFWS BCC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires
open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging
area with insect prey within a few km of the colony.

Low Potential
Suitable open water habitat is not present in the study area. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat may be
present in the study area. The most recent CNDDB
documented occurrence of the species within 5 miles of
the study area is from 1992.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G5/S3

CDFW FP

CDFW WL
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas.

Low Potential
Suitable foothill habitat may be present in the study
area. Suitable nesting habitat may also be present in the study area. However, the study area is largely
developed. There are no CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area.

Birds
Reptiles
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/SCE
G4/S2

CDFW SSC

USFWS BCC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel.

Moderate Potential
Suitable grassland with low-growing vegetation is
present in the study area. Suitable burrowing habitat is present in the study area. There are 2 recent CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area from 2003 and 2009.

Baeolophus inornatus
oak titmouse
None/None
G4/S4

USFWS BCC
Oak woodlands. Cavity nester. Many will use scrub oaks
or other brush as long as woodlands are nearby. Mostly
live in warm, open, dry oak or oak-pine woodlands.

No Potential
Suitable oak woodland habitat does not occur in the
study area. There are no CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area.

Brachyramphus marmoratus
marbled murrelet
FT/SE
G3/S2
Feeds near-shore; nests inland along coast from Eureka
to Oregon border and from Half Moon Bay to Santa
Cruz. Nests in old-growth redwood-dominated forests,
up to six miles inland, often in Douglas-fir.

Low Potential
Suitable nesting habitat is likely not present in the study area. Transient species may be present in the study
area. However, there are no CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area.

Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
None/None
G5/S3

CDFW SSC

USFWS BCC
Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and forage in
grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain
cienagas. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation,
usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of
sticks in wet areas.

Low Potential
Suitable coastal salt and freshwater marsh habitat Is not present in the study area. Suitable nesting habitat may be present in the study area. However, there are no
CNDDB documented occurrences of thes species within
5 miles of the study area.

Contopus cooperi
olive-sided flycatcher
None/None
G4/S3

CDFW SSC

USFWS BCC
Nesting habitats are mixed conifer, montane hardwoodconifer, Douglas-fir, redwood, red fir and lodgepole pine. Most numerous in montane conifer forests where
tall trees overlook canyons, meadows, lakes or other
open terrain.

No Potential
Suitable nesting habitat is likely not present in the study area. Suitable montane coniferous forest habitat is not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area.

Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow flycatcher
FE/SE
G5T2/S3
Riparian woodlands in Southern California. For nesting, requires dense riparian habitats with
cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation. Saturated
soils, standing water or nearby streams, pools, or
cienegas are a component of nesting habitat.

No Potential
Suitable riparian woodland habitat is not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB documented
occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the study
area.

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
common yellowthroat
None/None
G5T3/S3

CDFW SSC

USFWS BCC
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and
salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover
down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule
patches, willows for nesting.

No Potential
Suitable fresh and saltwater marsh habitat is not
present in the study area. There are no CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area.

Gymnogyps californianus
California condor
FE/SE
G1/S2

CDFW FP
Require vast expanses of open savannah, grasslands,
and foothill chaparral in mountain ranges of moderate
altitude. Deep canyons containing clefts in the rocky
walls provide nesting sites. Forages up to 100 miles
from roost/nest.

No Potential
Suitable vast expanses of open grassland habitat is not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB
documented occurences of the species within 5 miles of
the study area.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
FD/SE
G5/S3

CDFW FP
USFS S
Ocean shore, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting
and wintering. Most nests within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree with open
branches, especially ponderosa pine. Roosts
communally in winter.

Low Potential
Suitable nesting habitat may be present in the study
area. However, the study area is largely developed.

There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of the
species within 5 miles of the study area.

Laurs californicus
California gull
None/None
G5/S4

CDFW WL

USFWS BCC
Littoral waters, sandy beaches, waters and shorelines of bays, tidal mud-flats, marshes, lakes, etc. Colonial
nester on islets in large interior lakes, either fresh or strongly alkaline.

Low Potential
Suitable littoral waters, waters and shorelines of bays, tidal mud-flats, marshes, and lake habitats are not
present in the study area. Suitable nesting habitat is
also not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area.

Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding's savannah sparrow
None/SE
G5T3/S3

USFWS BCC
Inhabits coastal salt marshes, from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. Nests in Salicornia on and
about margins of tidal flats.

No Potential
Suitable coastal salt marsh habitat and nesting habitat are not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area.

Pica nuttalli
yellow-billed magpie
None/None
G3G4/S3S4

USFWS BCC
Central Valley and coastal mountain ranges from south
of San Francisco to Santa Barbara County. Open oak and
riparian woodland, farm and ranchland or urban areas
with tall trees near grassland, pasture or cropland.

Low Potential
Suitable farm, ranchland, and urban habitats with tall
trees near grassland, pasture, or cropland is present in the study area. However, there are no CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area.

Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G3T1/S2

CDFW FP
Salt water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal
sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed, but feeds away
from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed
sloughs.

No Potential
Suitable salt water and brackish marsh habitat is not
present in the study area. There are no CNDDB
documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles
of the study area.

Rynchops niger
black skimmer
None/None
G5/S2

CDFW SSC

USFWS BCC
Nests on gravel bars, low islets, and sandy beaches, in unvegetated sites. Nesting colonies usually less than
200 pairs.

Low Potential
Suitable nesting habitat may be present in the study
area. However, the study area is largely developed.

There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of the
species within 5 miles of the study area.

Spinus lawrencei
Lawrence's goldfinch
None/None
G3G4/S4

USFWS BCC
Nests in open oak or other arid woodland and
chaparral, near water. Nearby herbaceous habitats used
for feeding. Closely associated with oaks.

Low Potential
Suitable nesting habitat is not present in the study area.

Suitable foraging habitat is also not present in the study area. There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of
the species within 5 miles of the study area.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
FE/SE
G5T2/S3
Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian
in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis,
mesquite.

Low Potential
Suitable dry river bottom habitat below 2000 feet is
present in the study area. Suitable nesting habitat may also be present in the study area. However, there are
no CNDDB documented occurrences of the species
within 5 miles of the study area.

Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3

CDFW SSC
USFS S
WBWG High
Found in a variety of habitats including deserts,
grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts in crevices of rock outcrops, caves,
mine tunnels, buildings, bridges, and hollows of live and dead trees which must protect bats from high
temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

Low Potential
Suitable grassland, shrubland, and roosting habitats are present in the study area. However, the most recent
CNDDB documented occurrence of the species within 5
miles of the study area is from 1994.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5/S3

CDFW SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils.

Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs
burrows.

Low Potential
Suitable habitat with friable soils is present in the study area. Suitable foraging habitat may not be present in
the study area. The most recent CNDDB documented
occurrence of the species within 5 miles of the study
area is from 1991.

Southern Vernal Pool None/None

GNR/SNR
Mammals
Sensitive Natural Communities
Appendix D
Traffic Noise Modeling Data
Existing
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
% Daytime%
Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to RecieverGround AbsorptionLane Distance
1 77.6 81.3 81.8 307 662 1427 US 101 N. of Clark Ave 45,500 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 70.0% 14.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2 76.5 80.3 80.8 262 564 1216 US 101 S. of Clark Ave 35,800 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 70.0% 14.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 3 78.8 82.5 82.9 363 783 1687 US 101 N. of Santa Maria Wy Junction 57,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 4 78.7 82.4 82.8 358 772 1664 US 101 S. of Santa Maria Wy Junction 59,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 5 79.6 83.3 83.7 409 881 1897 US 101 N. of Betteravia Rd 68,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 6 78.8 82.5 82.9 363 783 1687 US 101 S. of Betteravia Rd 57,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 7 80.0 83.7 84.1 432 932 2007 US 101 N. of Stowell Rd 74,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 8 79.6 83.3 83.7 409 881 1897 US 101 S. of Stowell Rd 68,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 9 79.7 83.4 83.8 417 898 1934 US 101 N. of SR 166 (Main St) 70,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 10 80.0 83.7 84.1 432 932 2007 US 101 S. of SR 166 (Main St) 74,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 11 80.4 84.7 85.2 513 1106 2382 US 101 N. of SR 135 (Broadway) 82,090 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 68.0% 13.0% 19.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 12 79.5 83.9 84.3 448 966 2081 US 101 S. of SR 135 (Broadway) 67,000 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 68.0% 13.0% 19.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 13 70.3 74.0 74.4 98 211 455 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Clark Ave 29,500 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 14 68.6 72.3 72.7 76 163 352 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Clark Ave 20,100 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 15 71.3 75.0 75.4 114 245 529 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Foster Rd 37,000 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 16 69.5 73.2 73.6 87 187 403 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Foster Rd 24,600 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 17 70.6 74.4 74.7 103 223 480 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Lakeview Rd 32,000 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 18 71.9 75.6 76.0 126 271 585 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Miller St 43,000 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 19 71.3 75.0 75.4 115 248 534 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Miller St 37,500 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 20 71.7 75.4 75.8 122 263 566 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Santa Maria Way 41,000 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 21 72.1 75.8 76.2 129 278 598 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Santa Maria Way 44,500 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 22 71.2 75.0 75.3 113 244 526 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Betteravia Rd 47,000 45 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 23 71.9 75.6 76.0 125 269 580 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Betteravia Rd 47,500 45 0.0% 98.4% 0.0% 1.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 24 68.6 72.3 72.6 75 162 348 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Stowell Rd 40,500 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 25 68.7 72.4 72.8 77 166 358 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Stowell Rd 44,500 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 26 67.3 71.0 71.4 62 133 287 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Main St 28,500 35 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 27 66.5 70.2 70.6 55 118 253 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Main St 26,500 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 28 67.0 70.7 71.1 59 127 274 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Donovan Rd 27,000 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 29 67.1 70.8 71.2 60 129 277 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Donovan Rd 27,500 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 30 69.7 73.4 73.8 90 193 416 Broadway (SR 135) W. of US 101 23,900 45 0.0% 93.0% 5.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 31 66.9 70.3 70.7 56 121 260 Main St (SR 166) W. of Blosser Rd 14,200 35 0.0% 88.0% 7.0% 5.0% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 32 67.4 70.8 71.2 60 130 280 Main St (SR 166) E. of Blosser Rd 15,900 35 0.0% 89.0% 6.0% 5.0% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 33 63.1 65.9 66.4 29 62 134 Main St (SR 166) E. of Suey Rd 6,400 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 79.0% 10.0% 10.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 34 64.5 67.3 67.7 35 76 164 Main St (SR 166) W. of Suey Rd 8,700 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 79.0% 10.0% 10.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 35 69.5 72.3 72.8 77 165 356 Main St (SR 166) US 101 SB-Off Ramp 29,500 35 0.0% 92.0% 3.1% 4.9% 79.0% 10.0% 10.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 36 69.9 73.3 73.7 88 191 411 Main St (SR 166) E. of Broadway (SR 135) 26,500 35 0.0% 89.1% 5.0% 5.9% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 37 67.7 71.1 71.5 63 137 294 Main St (SR 166) W. of Broadway (SR 135) 18,800 35 0.0% 92.0% 3.1% 4.9% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 38 55.1 58.2 58.7 9 19 41 A St S. of Betteravia Dr 3,450 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 39 60.6 63.8 64.2 21 44 95 A St S. of Sonya Ln 3,650 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 40 62.0 65.2 65.6 25 55 118 Alvin Ave W. of Railroad Ave 8,510 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 41 61.5 64.7 65.1 24 51 110 Alvin Ave W. of College Dr 7,700 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 42 60.9 64.1 64.5 22 46 100 Alvin Ave E. of Bradley Rd 6,670 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 43 58.0 61.2 61.6 14 30 64 Alvin Ave W. of Suey Rd 3,440 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 44 63.0 66.7 67.1 32 69 148 Battles Rd E. of Blosser Rd 10,740 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 45 59.5 63.2 63.6 19 40 87 Battles Rd W. of Blosser Rd 9,320 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 46 63.9 67.7 68.0 37 80 172 Battles Rd W. of Bradley Rd 7,670 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 47 61.0 64.7 65.1 24 51 110 Battles Rd E. of Broadway (SR 135) 13,220 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 48 60.5 64.2 64.6 22 47 101 Battles Rd W. of Broadway (SR 135) 11,650 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 49 55.1 58.8 59.2 10 21 44 Bay Ave b/w Donovan Rd and Harding Ave 3,490 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 50 66.8 71.2 71.5 63 135 290 Betteravia Dr E. of A St 14,630 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 51 67.0 71.4 71.7 65 139 300 Betteravia Dr E. of Skyway Dr 15,390 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 52 71.2 75.7 75.9 123 266 573 Betteravia Dr E. of Bradley Dr 38,460 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 53 70.7 75.1 75.4 114 246 530 Betteravia Dr W. of College Dr 34,170 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 54 68.2 72.7 72.9 79 169 365 Betteravia Dr W. of Depot St 20,620 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 55 70.4 74.9 75.1 110 237 511 Betteravia Dr E. of Broadway (SR 135) 30,350 45 0.0% 97.5% 0.0% 2.5% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 56 56.0 59.2 59.6 10 22 47 Blosser Rd S. of Foster Rd 2,220 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 57 68.9 72.0 72.5 73 158 339 Blosser Rd S. of Stowell Rd 24,120 45 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 58 67.6 70.8 71.3 61 131 282 Blosser Rd b/w Boone St and Cook St 23,530 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 59 66.4 69.5 70.0 50 107 231 Blosser Rd S. of Main St (SR 166) 24,960 40 0.0% 99.9% 0.0% 0.1% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 60 65.4 68.6 69.0 43 93 201 Blosser Rd S. of Alvin Ave 14,140 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 61 65.8 68.9 69.4 45 98 210 Blosser Rd S. of Donovan Rd 15,200 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 62 62.1 65.2 65.7 26 55 119 Blosser Rd N. of Taylor St 5,120 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 63 64.1 67.3 67.7 35 76 164 Blosser Rd S. of Taylor St 7,970 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 64 59.3 62.5 62.9 17 36 78 Blosser Rd N. of Canal St 2,700 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 65 52.7 56.4 56.8 7 14 30 Bradley Rd S. of Cottage Ln 1,000 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 66 59.6 63.3 63.7 19 41 88 Bradley Rd S. of Bello Rd 4,960 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 67 66.2 69.9 70.3 53 113 244 Bradley Rd S. of Betteravia Dr 22,740 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 68 67.3 71.0 71.3 61 132 285 Bradley Rd N. of Battles Rd 16,420 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 69 65.4 69.1 69.5 46 100 215 Bradley Rd S. of Battles Rd 10,760 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 70 62.9 66.6 67.0 31 68 146 Bradley Rd N. of Stowell Rd 14,860 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 71 58.3 62.0 62.4 16 33 72 Bradley Rd b/w SR 101 SB-On Ramp and Cypress St (one-way) 3,750 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 72 55.6 59.4 59.7 10 22 48 Bradley Rd E. of College Dr 3,950 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 73 46.7 50.4 50.8 3 6 12 Bull Canyon Rd N. of Panther Dr 260 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 74 54.2 57.9 58.3 8 18 38 California Blvd S. of Foster Rd 1,460 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 75 50.8 54.5 54.8 5 11 23 Camino Colegio E. of Miller St 1,280 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 76 51.1 54.9 55.2 5 11 24 Camino Colegio W. of Miller St 1,400 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 77 50.2 54.0 54.6 5 10 22 Canal St E. of Blosser Rd 1,140 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 69.0% 16.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 78 59.9 63.6 64.0 20 43 93 Carlotti Dr b/w Noble Wy and Paden St 5,490 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 79 58.2 61.9 62.3 15 33 71 Carlotti Dr b/w Stanford Dr and Murray Dr 3,700 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 80 57.0 60.4 60.9 12 27 58 Carmen Ln W. of Thornburg St 5,440 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 74.0% 13.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 81 58.5 61.8 62.4 15 33 72 Carmen Ln W. of Broadway (SR 135) 7,580 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 74.0% 13.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 82 51.4 55.1 55.5 5 12 25 Centennial St b/w Mt Whitney Wy and Panther Dr 1,480 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 83 55.0 58.7 59.1 9 20 43 Cesar E Chavez Dr S. of Hidden Pines Wy 3,390 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 84 59.7 61.6 62.2 15 32 70 College Dr E. of Santa Maria Wy 9,730 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 85 64.4 66.3 66.9 31 67 145 College Dr N. of McCoy Ln (Roundabout) 11,240 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 86 63.1 65.0 65.6 25 55 118 College Dr S. of McCoy Ln (Roundabout) 8,230 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 87 60.2 62.1 62.7 16 35 76 College Dr S. of Sunrise Dr 10,960 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 88 64.8 66.7 67.3 33 71 153 College Dr N. of Betteravia Dr 9,300 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 89 64.3 66.2 66.8 31 66 142 College Dr S. of Betteravia Dr 10,840 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 90 60.1 62.0 62.6 16 35 75 College Dr N. of Battles Rd 10,760 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project: 19-07303 (Existing) dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output
Inputs Auto Inputs
91 63.6 65.4 66.1 27 59 127 College Dr N. of Stowell Rd 12,310 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 92 62.4 64.2 64.9 23 49 106 College Dr N. of Boone St/Jones St 9,610 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 93 62.5 64.4 65.0 23 50 108 College Dr S. of Boone St/Jones St 9,930 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 94 62.0 63.9 64.5 22 46 100 College Dr N. of Main (SR 166) 8,620 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 95 60.3 62.2 62.8 17 36 77 College Dr N. of Alvin Ave 5,820 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 96 61.7 63.6 64.2 21 44 95 College Dr S. of Donovan Rd 8,020 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 97 49.5 53.3 53.6 4 9 19 Concepcion Ave N. of Jones St 970 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 98 60.5 64.2 64.6 22 47 101 Cook St W. of Depot St 6,190 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 99 60.8 64.5 64.9 23 49 106 Cook St W. of Broadway (SR 135) 8,870 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 100 60.8 64.5 64.9 23 49 107 Cook St E. of Broadway (SR 135) 8,990 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 101 56.2 59.9 60.2 11 24 52 Cook St b/w Miller St and School St 3,150 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 102 54.6 58.3 58.7 9 19 41 Cook St b/w East Ave and College Dr 2,190 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 103 59.4 63.1 63.4 18 39 85 Crossroad Ln W. of Bradley Rd 4,800 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 104 59.2 62.9 63.3 18 38 83 Depot St N. of Carmen Ln 4,500 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 105 65.2 68.9 69.3 45 96 207 Depot St N. of Battles Rd 10,450 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 106 61.1 64.8 65.2 24 52 111 Depot St N. of Stowell Rd 9,560 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 107 60.7 64.4 64.8 22 48 104 Depot St N. of Main (SR 166) 8,940 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 108 60.4 64.1 64.4 21 46 99 Depot St S. of Cook St 8,280 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 109 63.3 66.5 66.9 31 67 145 Donovan Rd W. of Railroad Ave 11,580 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 110 65.1 68.9 69.5 46 99 213 Donovan Rd W. of Broadway (SR 135) 17,390 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 70.0% 14.0% 16.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 111 64.8 69.3 69.7 48 103 221 Donovan Rd E. of Broadway (SR 135) 16,580 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 112 65.4 69.9 70.3 52 112 242 Donovan Rd W. of College Dr 19,010 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 113 66.4 70.9 71.3 61 131 282 Donovan Rd E. of College Dr 23,900 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 114 66.3 70.8 71.1 59 128 275 Donovan Rd W. of Carlotti Dr 23,040 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 115 61.4 64.0 64.5 22 46 100 Donovan Rd W. of Suey Rd 7,530 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 10.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 116 54.2 57.9 58.3 8 18 39 Enos Dr E. of College Dr 2,850 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 117 58.1 61.8 62.2 15 33 70 Fairway Dr E. of A St 2,700 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 118 59.2 63.3 63.5 18 40 85 Fairway Dr E. of Skyway Dr 3,490 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 77.0% 6.0% 17.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 119 54.1 57.8 58.1 8 17 38 Farrell Dr N. of Jones St 2,740 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 120 60.2 63.9 64.3 21 45 96 Fesler St E. of Broadway (SR 135) 5,640 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 121 61.0 64.8 65.1 24 51 110 Fesler St W. of Broadway (SR 135) 6,880 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 122 57.0 60.7 61.1 13 27 59 Fesler St b/w Benwiley Ave and Railroad Ave 3,800 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 123 58.8 62.5 62.9 17 36 78 Foster Rd W. of Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) 4,190 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 124 48.8 52.5 52.9 4 8 17 Foxenwood Ln S. of Foster Rd 810 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 125 56.9 60.6 61.0 12 27 58 Grant St b/w Broadway (SR 135) and River Ranch Dr 5,230 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 126 61.5 64.9 65.5 25 54 116 Hidden Pines Wy W. of Preisker Ln 7,950 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 72.0% 14.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 127 56.5 60.2 60.4 12 25 53 Industrial Pkwy E. of Skyway Dr 1,870 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 128 55.4 59.1 59.4 10 21 46 La Brea Ave W. of Blosser Rd 1,910 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 129 57.2 60.9 61.3 13 28 61 Lynne Dr b/w Lee Dr and Donovan Rd 5,670 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 130 62.8 66.5 66.9 31 67 145 Jones St E. of Farrell Dr 7,990 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 131 60.2 63.9 64.3 21 45 97 Jones St W. of Bradley Rd 4,400 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 132 54.9 58.6 59.0 9 20 43 McClelland St S. of Cook St 3,330 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 133 54.3 58.0 58.4 8 18 39 McCoy Ln E. of A St 2,880 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 134 65.8 69.5 69.9 49 107 230 McCoy Ln E. of Skyway Dr 11,850 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 135 63.7 67.4 67.8 36 77 166 McCoy Ln E. of Broadway (SR 135) 12,760 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 136 66.9 70.6 70.9 58 125 268 McCoy Ln W. of Broadway (SR 135) 14,960 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 137 59.9 63.6 64.0 20 43 93 McCoy Ln E. of College Dr (roundabout) 5,330 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 138 60.7 64.4 64.8 23 49 105 McCoy Ln W. of College Dr (roundabout) 6,380 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 139 65.6 68.2 68.7 41 88 190 Miller St N. of Battles Rd 14,540 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 140 61.0 63.6 64.1 20 43 94 Miller St N. of Stowell Rd 13,420 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 141 64.4 67.0 67.5 34 73 158 Miller St S. of Main (SR 166) 14,770 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 142 61.9 64.4 65.0 23 50 107 Miller St S. of Alvin Ave 8,520 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 143 55.9 58.5 59.0 9 20 43 Miller St b/w Lee Dr and Donovan Rd 4,160 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 144 60.4 62.9 63.5 18 40 85 Miller St S. of Donovan Rd 5,840 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 145 64.4 67.0 67.5 34 74 159 Miller St E. of Santa Maria Wy 11,120 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 146 65.4 68.0 68.5 40 86 185 Miller St S. of Betteravia Dr 13,990 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 147 58.3 62.0 62.4 16 33 72 Morrison Ave W. of Broadway (SR 135) 5,140 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 148 58.6 62.3 62.7 16 35 75 Morrison Ave W. of Depot St 5,500 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 149 58.4 62.1 62.5 16 34 73 Palisade Dr S. of Main (SR 166) 7,440 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 150 56.6 58.8 59.2 10 20 44 Panther Dr S. of Suey Crossing Rd 4,810 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 85.0% 8.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 151 62.9 66.1 66.4 29 62 133 Preisker Ln N. of Broadway (SR 135) 10,880 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 7.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 152 54.1 57.8 58.2 8 18 38 Professional Pkwy N. of McCoy Ln 2,760 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 153 62.0 65.1 65.6 25 55 118 Railroad Ave N. of Fesler Ave 8,750 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 154 62.5 65.7 66.1 28 60 128 Railroad Ave b/w Donovan Rd and Harding Ave 9,980 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 155 57.6 60.8 61.2 13 28 60 Railroad Ave N. of Taylor St 6,160 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 156 61.5 64.6 65.1 23 50 109 Railroad Ave S. of Taylor St 7,780 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 157 62.9 66.6 67.0 31 68 146 Santa Maria Wy S. of Miller Wy 10,470 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 158 65.3 69.0 69.4 45 98 211 Santa Maria Wy S. of Dauphin St 10,420 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 159 52.5 56.2 56.6 6 14 29 Shepard Dr N. of Battles Rd 1,900 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 160 53.8 57.6 57.9 8 17 36 Sierra Madre Ave W. of Bradley Rd 1,350 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 161 67.1 70.8 71.2 60 129 277 Skyway Dr S. of Industrial Pkwy 15,740 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 162 67.5 71.2 71.6 64 137 296 Skyway Dr W. of Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) 17,350 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 163 67.3 71.0 71.4 62 133 287 Skyway Dr N. of Fairway Dr 16,540 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 164 64.5 68.2 68.6 40 87 187 Skyway Dr S. of Fairway Dr 15,260 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 165 68.1 71.8 72.2 70 151 326 Skyway Dr N. of Betteravia Dr 20,010 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 166 68.0 71.7 72.1 69 149 320 Skyway Dr S. of Betteravia Dr 19,530 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 167 45.2 49.0 49.3 2 5 10 Sonya Ln E. of A St 360 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 168 51.1 54.9 55.2 5 11 24 Southside Pkwy E. of Centerpoint Pkwy 1,400 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 169 56.6 60.3 60.7 12 26 56 Southside Pkwy W. of Bradley Rd (Roundabout) 4,940 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 170 65.3 69.0 69.4 46 98 211 Stowell Rd W. of Bradley Rd 20,220 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 171 65.4 69.1 69.5 46 100 215 Stowell Rd W. of Depot St 14,020 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 172 65.2 68.9 69.3 45 97 208 Stowell Rd W. of Blosser Rd 9,510 40 0.0% 95.4% 0.0% 4.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 173 66.1 69.8 70.2 52 111 239 Stowell Rd W. of Hanson Wy 8,020 55 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 174 61.0 64.4 65.0 23 50 107 Suey Rd N. of Jones St 5,300 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 14.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 175 62.6 66.0 66.5 29 63 136 Suey Rd N. of Main (SR 166) 7,590 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 14.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 176 60.8 64.2 64.7 22 48 103 Suey Rd N. of Alvin Ave 4,850 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 14.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 177 53.6 57.3 57.6 8 16 35 Sunrise Dr W. of College Dr 2,440 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 178 54.3 58.0 58.4 8 18 39 Sunrise Dr E. of Santa Maria Wy 2,910 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 179 58.8 62.5 63.0 17 37 79 Taylor St W. of Railroad Ave 5,740 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 71.0% 14.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 180 61.6 65.3 65.8 26 56 122 Taylor St W. of Broadway (SR 135) 10,930 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 71.0% 14.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 181 59.1 62.2 62.7 16 35 75 Thornburg St N. of Betteravia Dr 6,150 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 182 58.2 61.4 61.8 14 31 66 Thornburg St N. of Carmen Ln 3,710 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 183 58.1 61.3 61.7 14 30 65 Thornburg St S. of Battles Rd 3,590 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 184 62.9 65.5 66.0 27 58 125 Union Valley Parkway W. of Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) 5,990 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 80.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 185 57.1 60.3 60.7 12 26 56 Union Valley Parkway E. of Blosser Rd 1,630 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 186 58.9 62.1 62.5 16 34 73 Western Ave N. of Stowell Rd 8,330 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 187 56.0 59.2 59.6 10 22 47 Western Ave N. of Main (SR 166) 4,290 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 188 56.1 59.3 59.7 10 22 48 Western Ave S. of Main (SR 166) 4,390 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 189 58.1 61.8 62.2 15 32 70 Westgate Rd S. of Battles Rd 3,590 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 190 54.7 58.4 58.8 9 19 41 Westgate Rd N. of Carmen Ln 1,640 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 2050 Preferred Alternative (Future)
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
% Daytime%
Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to RecieverGround AbsorptionLane Distance
1 79.4 83.1 83.7 408 879 1894 US 101 N. of Clark Ave 69,570 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 70.0% 14.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2 77.8 81.5 82.0 317 683 1472 US 101 S. of Clark Ave 47,690 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 70.0% 14.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 3 81.9 85.6 86.0 580 1249 2691 US 101 N. of Santa Maria Wy Junction 114,840 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 4 80.9 84.6 85.0 499 1074 2314 US 101 S. of Santa Maria Wy Junction 96,780 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 5 82.0 85.8 86.1 595 1282 2763 US 101 N. of Betteravia Rd 119,490 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 6 81.9 85.6 86.0 580 1249 2691 US 101 S. of Betteravia Rd 114,840 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 7 82.7 86.4 86.8 654 1410 3037 US 101 N. of Stowell Rd 137,740 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 8 82.9 86.6 87.0 677 1458 3142 US 101 S. of Stowell Rd 144,940 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 9 84.1 87.8 88.2 813 1752 3774 US 101 N. of SR 166 (Main St) 190,760 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 10 83.7 87.5 87.8 773 1665 3587 US 101 S. of SR 166 (Main St) 176,760 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 11 85.3 89.7 90.1 1094 2356 5076 US 101 N. of SR 135 (Broadway) 255,300 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 68.0% 13.0% 19.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 12 84.2 88.6 89.0 921 1985 4276 US 101 S. of SR 135 (Broadway) 197,400 65 0.0% 86.0% 6.0% 8.0% 68.0% 13.0% 19.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 13 71.3 75.1 75.4 115 248 534 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Clark Ave 37,580 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 14 69.6 73.3 73.7 88 190 409 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Clark Ave 25,120 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 15 74.6 78.3 78.7 190 409 881 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Foster Rd 79,580 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 16 71.8 75.5 75.9 124 267 576 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Foster Rd 42,050 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 17 73.1 76.9 77.2 152 327 705 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Lakeview Rd 56,990 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 18 72.9 76.6 77.0 146 315 680 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Miller St 53,890 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 19 73.5 77.2 77.6 160 344 742 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Miller St 61,470 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 20 74.0 77.7 78.1 173 373 804 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) N. of Santa Maria Way 69,330 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 21 73.0 76.7 77.1 149 322 693 Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) S. of Santa Maria Way 55,530 45 0.0% 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 22 73.2 77.0 77.3 154 332 716 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Betteravia Rd 74,580 45 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 23 74.7 78.4 78.8 194 417 898 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Betteravia Rd 91,630 45 0.0% 98.4% 0.0% 1.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 24 70.7 74.4 74.8 105 225 485 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Stowell Rd 66,600 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 25 71.7 75.4 75.8 122 263 567 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Stowell Rd 88,700 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 26 70.0 73.7 74.1 94 203 437 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Main St 53,420 35 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 27 69.3 73.0 73.4 84 180 388 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Main St 50,360 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 28 70.6 74.3 74.7 102 220 474 Broadway (SR 135) N. of Donovan Rd 61,560 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 29 69.6 73.3 73.7 88 190 409 Broadway (SR 135) S. of Donovan Rd 49,310 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 30 74.5 78.2 78.6 188 404 871 Broadway (SR 135) W. of US 101 72,350 45 0.0% 93.0% 5.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 31 70.1 73.4 73.9 91 195 420 Main St (SR 166) W. of Blosser Rd 29,220 35 0.0% 88.0% 7.0% 5.0% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 32 69.8 73.1 73.6 87 186 402 Main St (SR 166) E. of Blosser Rd 27,260 35 0.0% 89.0% 6.0% 5.0% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 33 67.9 70.7 71.1 60 128 276 Main St (SR 166) E. of Suey Rd 19,050 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 79.0% 10.0% 10.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 34 68.3 71.2 71.6 64 138 298 Main St (SR 166) W. of Suey Rd 21,310 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 79.0% 10.0% 10.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 35 71.7 74.5 75.0 107 231 499 Main St (SR 166) US 101 SB-Off Ramp 48,790 35 0.0% 92.0% 3.1% 4.9% 79.0% 10.0% 10.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 36 71.3 74.7 75.1 110 237 510 Main St (SR 166) E. of Broadway (SR 135) 36,700 35 0.0% 89.1% 5.0% 5.9% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 37 69.4 72.8 73.2 82 177 382 Main St (SR 166) W. of Broadway (SR 135) 27,740 35 0.0% 92.0% 3.1% 4.9% 76.0% 11.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 38 58.6 61.8 62.2 15 33 70 A St S. of Betteravia Dr 7,820 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 39 67.4 70.5 71.0 58 125 269 A St S. of Sonya Ln 17,330 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 40 64.1 67.3 67.7 35 76 164 Alvin Ave W. of Railroad Ave 14,010 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 41 66.1 69.2 69.7 48 103 221 Alvin Ave W. of College Dr 21,860 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 42 65.7 68.9 69.3 45 97 209 Alvin Ave E. of Bradley Rd 20,130 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 43 63.9 67.1 67.5 34 73 158 Alvin Ave W. of Suey Rd 13,250 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 44 65.2 68.9 69.3 45 96 208 Battles Rd E. of Blosser Rd 17,860 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 45 62.5 66.3 66.6 30 64 138 Battles Rd W. of Blosser Rd 18,760 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 46 70.1 73.8 74.2 95 204 440 Battles Rd W. of Bradley Rd 31,450 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 47 63.0 66.8 67.1 32 69 150 Battles Rd E. of Broadway (SR 135) 21,080 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 48 62.0 65.8 66.1 28 60 128 Battles Rd W. of Broadway (SR 135) 16,740 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 49 55.1 58.8 59.2 10 21 44 Bay Ave b/w Donovan Rd and Harding Ave 3,490 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 50 71.6 76.1 76.3 132 285 614 Betteravia Dr E. of A St 45,090 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 51 72.0 76.4 76.7 139 300 646 Betteravia Dr E. of Skyway Dr 48,570 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 52 73.6 78.1 78.3 179 385 830 Betteravia Dr E. of Bradley Dr 67,060 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 53 74.5 79.0 79.2 207 445 959 Betteravia Dr W. of College Dr 83,220 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 54 72.9 77.4 77.6 161 347 748 Betteravia Dr W. of Depot St 60,520 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 55 73.8 78.3 78.5 186 400 862 Betteravia Dr E. of Broadway (SR 135) 66,480 45 0.0% 97.5% 0.0% 2.5% 73.0% 7.0% 20.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 56 69.0 72.2 72.6 74 160 345 Blosser Rd S. of Foster Rd 44,050 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 57 73.3 76.5 76.9 144 311 670 Blosser Rd S. of Stowell Rd 66,950 45 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 58 70.8 74.0 74.4 99 213 459 Blosser Rd b/w Boone St and Cook St 49,050 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 59 69.3 72.4 72.9 78 167 361 Blosser Rd S. of Main St (SR 166) 48,700 40 0.0% 99.9% 0.0% 0.1% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 60 69.3 72.5 73.0 79 169 365 Blosser Rd S. of Alvin Ave 34,740 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 61 69.0 72.2 72.6 75 161 346 Blosser Rd S. of Donovan Rd 32,070 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 62 63.7 66.9 67.4 33 72 155 Blosser Rd N. of Taylor St 7,530 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 63 67.8 71.0 71.4 62 133 287 Blosser Rd S. of Taylor St 18,500 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 64 60.0 63.2 63.6 19 40 87 Blosser Rd N. of Canal St 3,170 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 65 60.2 63.9 64.3 21 45 96 Bradley Rd S. of Cottage Ln 5,620 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 66 60.9 64.6 65.0 23 50 107 Bradley Rd S. of Bello Rd 6,640 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 67 68.0 71.7 72.1 69 149 321 Bradley Rd S. of Betteravia Dr 34,340 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 68 72.3 76.0 76.4 133 287 618 Bradley Rd N. of Battles Rd 52,270 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 69 69.4 73.1 73.5 85 183 395 Bradley Rd S. of Battles Rd 26,750 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 70 65.2 68.9 69.2 45 96 207 Bradley Rd N. of Stowell Rd 25,010 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 71 61.2 64.9 65.3 24 53 113 Bradley Rd b/w SR 101 SB-On Ramp and Cypress St (one-way) 7,390 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 72 55.6 59.4 59.7 10 22 48 Bradley Rd E. of College Dr 3,950 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 73 57.8 61.5 61.9 14 31 67 Bull Canyon Rd N. of Panther Dr 3,360 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 74 57.5 61.2 61.6 14 30 64 California Blvd S. of Foster Rd 3,160 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 75 53.0 56.7 57.1 7 15 32 Camino Colegio E. of Miller St 2,140 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 76 53.3 57.0 57.4 7 15 33 Camino Colegio W. of Miller St 2,280 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 77 52.6 56.4 57.0 7 15 31 Canal St E. of Blosser Rd 1,980 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 69.0% 16.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 78 65.6 69.3 69.7 48 103 222 Carlotti Dr b/w Noble Wy and Paden St 20,360 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 79 65.6 69.3 69.7 47 102 220 Carlotti Dr b/w Stanford Dr and Murray Dr 20,070 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 80 56.8 60.1 60.7 12 26 55 Carmen Ln W. of Thornburg St 5,110 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 74.0% 13.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 81 60.2 63.6 64.1 20 44 94 Carmen Ln W. of Broadway (SR 135) 11,350 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 74.0% 13.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 82 51.4 55.1 55.5 5 12 25 Centennial St b/w Mt Whitney Wy and Panther Dr 1,480 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 83 54.9 58.6 59.0 9 20 43 Cesar E Chavez Dr S. of Hidden Pines Wy 3,320 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 84 64.0 65.8 66.5 29 63 135 College Dr E. of Santa Maria Wy 26,090 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 85 66.0 67.9 68.5 40 86 185 College Dr N. of McCoy Ln (Roundabout) 16,150 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 86 67.2 69.0 69.7 47 102 220 College Dr S. of McCoy Ln (Roundabout) 21,020 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 87 63.7 65.6 66.2 28 60 129 College Dr S. of Sunrise Dr 24,390 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 88 70.7 72.6 73.2 81 176 378 College Dr N. of Betteravia Dr 36,140 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 89 66.0 67.9 68.5 40 86 185 College Dr S. of Betteravia Dr 16,250 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 90 65.3 67.2 67.8 36 77 167 College Dr N. of Battles Rd 35,740 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project: 19-07303 (2050 Preferred Alternative) Output
Inputs Auto Inputs
91 68.9 70.8 71.4 62 134 288 College Dr N. of Stowell Rd 42,110 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 92 69.3 71.1 71.8 65 141 304 College Dr N. of Boone St/Jones St 46,900 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 93 69.2 71.1 71.7 65 140 303 College Dr S. of Boone St/Jones St 46,630 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 94 67.2 69.1 69.7 48 103 222 College Dr N. of Main (SR 166) 28,520 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 95 65.9 67.8 68.4 39 84 182 College Dr N. of Alvin Ave 21,110 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 96 66.2 68.1 68.7 41 88 190 College Dr S. of Donovan Rd 22,510 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 83.0% 11.0% 6.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 97 49.3 53.0 53.4 4 8 18 Concepcion Ave N. of Jones St 920 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 98 62.1 65.8 66.2 28 60 129 Cook St W. of Depot St 9,030 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 99 63.0 66.7 67.1 32 69 148 Cook St W. of Broadway (SR 135) 14,740 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 100 62.3 66.0 66.4 29 62 134 Cook St E. of Broadway (SR 135) 12,650 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 101 59.6 63.3 63.7 19 41 88 Cook St b/w Miller St and School St 6,990 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 102 58.5 62.2 62.6 16 34 74 Cook St b/w East Ave and College Dr 5,360 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 103 61.8 65.5 65.9 27 58 124 Crossroad Ln W. of Bradley Rd 8,470 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 104 62.2 65.9 66.3 28 61 132 Depot St N. of Carmen Ln 9,040 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 105 66.7 70.4 70.8 56 121 262 Depot St N. of Battles Rd 14,850 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 106 66.1 69.8 70.2 52 112 240 Depot St N. of Stowell Rd 30,420 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 107 62.1 65.8 66.2 28 60 130 Depot St N. of Main (SR 166) 12,420 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 108 66.2 69.9 70.3 53 113 244 Depot St S. of Cook St 32,050 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 109 65.7 68.9 69.3 45 97 208 Donovan Rd W. of Railroad Ave 20,010 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 110 67.8 71.7 72.2 70 152 327 Donovan Rd W. of Broadway (SR 135) 32,900 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 70.0% 14.0% 16.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 111 65.4 69.9 70.3 52 112 241 Donovan Rd E. of Broadway (SR 135) 18,940 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 112 66.7 71.2 71.6 64 137 295 Donovan Rd W. of College Dr 25,650 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 113 68.5 73.0 73.4 84 181 389 Donovan Rd E. of College Dr 38,800 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 114 68.6 73.1 73.4 85 182 393 Donovan Rd W. of Carlotti Dr 39,300 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 68.0% 11.0% 20.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 115 63.1 65.7 66.2 28 60 130 Donovan Rd W. of Suey Rd 11,150 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 10.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 116 55.0 58.8 59.1 9 20 44 Enos Dr E. of College Dr 3,440 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 117 61.7 65.4 65.8 26 57 122 Fairway Dr E. of A St 6,180 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 118 61.5 65.6 65.8 26 56 121 Fairway Dr E. of Skyway Dr 5,930 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 77.0% 6.0% 17.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 119 55.1 58.8 59.2 10 21 44 Farrell Dr N. of Jones St 3,500 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 120 64.9 68.6 69.0 43 93 200 Fesler St E. of Broadway (SR 135) 16,860 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 121 65.0 68.7 69.1 44 94 202 Fesler St W. of Broadway (SR 135) 17,130 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 122 59.1 62.8 63.2 18 38 82 Fesler St b/w Benwiley Ave and Railroad Ave 6,210 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 123 67.7 71.5 71.8 66 143 308 Foster Rd W. of Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) 33,160 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 124 50.2 53.9 54.3 4 10 21 Foxenwood Ln S. of Foster Rd 1,120 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 125 57.2 60.9 61.3 13 28 61 Grant St b/w Broadway (SR 135) and River Ranch Dr 5,680 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 126 61.9 65.3 65.9 26 57 123 Hidden Pines Wy W. of Preisker Ln 8,720 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 72.0% 14.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 127 60.8 64.5 64.7 22 48 103 Industrial Pkwy E. of Skyway Dr 5,010 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 128 64.5 68.2 68.6 40 87 187 La Brea Ave W. of Blosser Rd 15,730 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 129 57.9 61.6 62.0 15 31 68 Lynne Dr b/w Lee Dr and Donovan Rd 6,630 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 130 67.9 71.6 72.0 68 147 316 Jones St E. of Farrell Dr 25,780 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 131 67.4 71.1 71.5 63 136 292 Jones St W. of Bradley Rd 22,960 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 132 57.7 61.4 61.8 14 31 66 McClelland St S. of Cook St 6,350 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 133 55.1 58.8 59.1 9 20 44 McCoy Ln E. of A St 3,450 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 134 68.3 72.0 72.4 72 155 333 McCoy Ln E. of Skyway Dr 20,720 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 135 65.9 69.6 70.0 50 107 231 McCoy Ln E. of Broadway (SR 135) 20,870 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 136 69.9 73.6 74.0 92 198 427 McCoy Ln W. of Broadway (SR 135) 30,060 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 137 60.0 63.7 64.1 20 43 93 McCoy Ln E. of College Dr (roundabout) 5,370 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 138 65.1 68.8 69.2 44 95 204 McCoy Ln W. of College Dr (roundabout) 17,370 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 139 69.8 72.3 72.8 77 167 359 Miller St N. of Battles Rd 37,810 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 140 63.5 66.1 66.6 30 64 138 Miller St N. of Stowell Rd 24,030 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 141 67.4 70.0 70.5 54 116 250 Miller St S. of Main (SR 166) 29,430 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 142 63.9 66.5 67.0 31 68 146 Miller St S. of Alvin Ave 13,520 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 143 58.8 61.3 61.9 14 31 66 Miller St b/w Lee Dr and Donovan Rd 8,020 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 144 62.9 65.5 66.0 27 58 126 Miller St S. of Donovan Rd 10,500 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 145 68.1 70.7 71.2 60 130 280 Miller St E. of Santa Maria Wy 26,050 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 146 69.4 71.9 72.5 73 158 339 Miller St S. of Betteravia Dr 34,750 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 147 59.9 63.6 64.0 20 43 92 Morrison Ave W. of Broadway (SR 135) 7,440 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 148 59.8 63.5 63.9 20 42 91 Morrison Ave W. of Depot St 7,330 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 149 58.8 62.5 62.8 17 36 77 Palisade Dr S. of Main (SR 166) 8,080 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 150 57.6 59.8 60.2 11 24 52 Panther Dr S. of Suey Crossing Rd 6,070 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 85.0% 8.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 151 63.3 66.5 66.8 31 66 142 Preisker Ln N. of Broadway (SR 135) 12,010 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 81.0% 7.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 152 55.1 58.8 59.2 10 20 44 Professional Pkwy N. of McCoy Ln 3,480 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 153 63.9 67.1 67.5 34 74 159 Railroad Ave N. of Fesler Ave 13,740 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 154 63.8 67.0 67.4 34 72 156 Railroad Ave b/w Donovan Rd and Harding Ave 13,340 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 155 60.7 63.9 64.3 21 45 97 Railroad Ave N. of Taylor St 12,730 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 156 64.6 67.8 68.2 38 82 177 Railroad Ave S. of Taylor St 16,170 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 157 67.3 71.0 71.4 62 134 289 Santa Maria Wy S. of Miller Wy 29,220 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 158 70.3 74.0 74.4 98 211 454 Santa Maria Wy S. of Dauphin St 32,950 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 159 57.1 60.8 61.2 13 28 60 Shepard Dr N. of Battles Rd 5,520 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 160 60.5 64.2 64.6 22 47 101 Sierra Madre Ave W. of Bradley Rd 6,240 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 161 70.9 74.6 75.0 108 233 502 Skyway Dr S. of Industrial Pkwy 38,270 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 162 71.0 74.8 75.1 110 237 510 Skyway Dr W. of Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) 39,260 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 163 71.2 74.9 75.3 112 241 520 Skyway Dr N. of Fairway Dr 40,390 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 164 68.6 72.3 72.7 75 162 350 Skyway Dr S. of Fairway Dr 39,010 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 165 71.5 75.2 75.6 118 254 547 Skyway Dr N. of Betteravia Dr 43,520 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 166 70.8 74.5 74.9 105 227 490 Skyway Dr S. of Betteravia Dr 36,890 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 167 52.4 56.1 56.5 6 14 29 Sonya Ln E. of A St 1,880 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 168 52.0 55.7 56.1 6 13 27 Southside Pkwy E. of Centerpoint Pkwy 1,700 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 169 56.6 60.3 60.7 12 26 56 Southside Pkwy W. of Bradley Rd (Roundabout) 4,950 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 170 68.1 71.8 72.2 70 152 327 Stowell Rd W. of Bradley Rd 38,840 35 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 171 69.9 73.7 74.0 93 200 431 Stowell Rd W. of Depot St 39,870 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 172 71.3 75.0 75.4 114 246 531 Stowell Rd W. of Blosser Rd 38,640 40 0.0% 95.4% 0.0% 4.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 173 71.6 75.3 75.7 120 258 557 Stowell Rd W. of Hanson Wy 28,430 55 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 174 64.3 67.7 68.2 38 82 177 Suey Rd N. of Jones St 11,210 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 14.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 175 65.4 68.8 69.3 45 97 209 Suey Rd N. of Main (SR 166) 14,410 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 14.0% 13.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 176 64.9 68.3 68.8 42 90 194 Suey Rd N. of Alvin Ave 12,460 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 73.0% 14.0% 13.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 177 53.8 57.5 57.9 8 17 36 Sunrise Dr W. of College Dr 2,570 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 178 54.6 58.3 58.7 9 19 41 Sunrise Dr E. of Santa Maria Wy 3,080 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 179 62.3 66.0 66.5 29 63 136 Taylor St W. of Railroad Ave 12,870 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 71.0% 14.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 180 63.0 66.7 67.2 33 70 152 Taylor St W. of Broadway (SR 135) 15,210 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 71.0% 14.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 181 59.2 62.3 62.8 16 36 77 Thornburg St N. of Betteravia Dr 6,300 30 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 182 61.2 64.4 64.8 23 49 105 Thornburg St N. of Carmen Ln 7,330 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 183 62.0 65.1 65.6 25 55 117 Thornburg St S. of Battles Rd 8,730 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 184 70.6 73.2 73.7 89 191 411 Union Valley Parkway W. of Orcutt Expressway (SR 135) 35,530 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 80.0% 11.0% 9.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 185 69.0 72.2 72.6 75 162 348 Union Valley Parkway E. of Blosser Rd 25,460 45 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 186 59.9 63.1 63.5 18 40 86 Western Ave N. of Stowell Rd 10,550 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 187 57.7 60.9 61.3 13 28 61 Western Ave N. of Main (SR 166) 6,340 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 188 57.1 60.3 60.7 12 26 56 Western Ave S. of Main (SR 166) 5,560 25 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 78.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 189 58.1 61.8 62.2 15 33 70 Westgate Rd S. of Battles Rd 3,600 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 190 54.7 58.4 58.8 9 19 41 Westgate Rd N. of Carmen Ln 1,640 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 Appendix E
WSC Technical Memorandum
City of Santa Maria 1 Santa Maria General Plan Update
Technical Memorandum
Date: 12/16/2024
To: Raimi & Associates
Prepared By: Cason Roberts, Stephanie Ard, PE
Reviewed By: Joshua Reynolds, PE
Project: Santa Maria General Plan Update
Subject: Annexation Study

1.0 Introduction
This technical memorandum provides foundational background analysis for the City of Santa Maria's Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Annexation applications. The purpose of this analysis is to support the City in evaluating the capacity of its existing water and wastewater systems to meet current and future needs, including potential annexation areas.

The memorandum is organized as follows:
• Present and Probable Needs
• Capacity Analysis of Sewer and Water Facilities
• Recommended Infrastructure to Support Annexation Area

2.0 Present and Probable Needs
This section addresses SOI Section 10.B: “Present and probable needs for sewer and water facilities.” It is divided into two primary parts: one focusing on the present water and sewer system needs and the other summarizes the projected buildout needs.

2.1 Present Needs
Table 2.1 summarizes the City’s current water system demand. System demand represents the total quantity of water used, encompassing customer consumption, authorized non-customer usage, and distribution losses. This demand is calculated by summing supply data from all sources over a calendar year, covering the years 2020 through 2023, with an average calculated over this period.

ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 2 Santa Maria General Plan Update
Table 2.1 Current System Water Demand in acre-feet per year 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average
Annual Water Demand (AFY)1 13,106 13,091 12,515 12,597 12,827 1 System-wide demand calculated from total water production data provided by the City.

Table 2.2 summarizes the City’s current wastewater flow, based on influent data from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for the years 2019 through 2023.

Table 2.2 Existing Wastewater Flow in million gallons per day 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average
Annual Wastewater Flow at WWTP (mgd)1 6.80 7.30 6.95 7.31 7.7 7.2 1 Flow data provided by the City.

2.2 Probable Buildout Needs
Water demand and wastewater flow at buildout was estimated by multiplying the average annual per capita need with the population expected at buildout. The population at buildout was estimated based on the existing and proposed housing units within City limits, proposed housing units in the annexation area, and a persons per household factor of 3.76 sourced from US Census data. Table 2.3 shows the projected housing units and population at buildout.

Table 2.3 Projected Population at Buildout
Housing Units 1 Population 2,3
Existing in City Limits 29,860 112,273
Proposed in City Limits 12,260 46,098
Proposed in Annexation 3,880 14,589
Total at Buildout 46,000 172,960
1 Total household units at buildout per City staff.
2 3.73 person per household sourced from census.gov (United States Census Bureau, 2024) 3 Total population at buildout calculated as the total housing units at buildout multiplied by the persons per housing unit factor.

The water demand at buildout was estimated by combining the projected demand from proposed growth with the existing water demand. The projected demand was determined using the anticipated population growth and a per capita water use factor of 109 gallons per person per day (gpcd) as indicated in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This water demand factor was used because the UWMP is the City’s most recently published planning document. Table 2.4 summarizes the projected buildout water demand for the City and the annexation area.

Table 2.4 Buildout System Water Demand
ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 3 Santa Maria General Plan Update
Population
Annual Water Demand
gpd AFY
Existing in City Limits1 112,273 11,451,208 12,827
Proposed in City Limits2 46,098 5,024,638 5,628
Proposed in Annexation2 14,589 1,590,179 1,781
Total at Buildout 172,960 18,852,640 20,236
1 Existing Annual Water Demand is based on historical data as presented in Table 2.1. 2 Water demand projections assume 109 gpcd to be consistent with the City’s 2020 UWMP.

Similar to the water demand projections, sewer flow at buildout was estimated by combining the projected flows from proposed growth with the existing sewer flows. The projected flow was determined based on the anticipated population growth and a per capita flow factor of 66.1 gpcd. This factor was selected as it aligns with the City’s draft Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan, currently in development. Table 2.5 summarizes the projected wastewater flow at buildout.

Table 2.5 Projected Wastewater Flow at Buildout
Population
Annual Water Demand1
gpd mgd
Existing in City Limits1 112,273 7,200,000 7.20
Proposed in City Limits2 46,098 3,047,051 3.05
Proposed in Annexation2 14,589 964,320 0.96
Total at Buildout 172,960 11,211,371 11.21
1 Existing sewer flow is based on historical data as presented in Table 2.2. 2 Sewer flow projections assume 66.1 gpcd per the City’s draft WWTP Master plan.

3.0 Capacity Analysis of Sewer and Water
Facilities
This section addresses SOI Section 10.C, which evaluates the "Present capacity of sewer and water facilities and adequacy of sewer and water facilities the affected agency provides or is authorized to provide." The City’s water and wastewater system capacities are analyzed and compared to current and projected needs below.

ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 4 Santa Maria General Plan Update

3.1 Water System Capacity
This analysis evaluates the City’s water system capacity in terms of supply, storage, and distribution.

3.1.1 Supply Capacity
The supply capacity of the City’s water system was assessed for normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions. Available supply under each scenario is based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2021) Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 present the available supply under each scenario. All scenarios show the City having sufficient supply to meet demand. The City anticipates that annexation will include the transfer of water rights sufficient to reliably offset the increased demand created by the annexation, thereby increasing the City’s available supply.

Table 3.1. Normal Year Water Supply Capacity
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Buildout
Available Supply (AFY) 36,558 36,403 36,250 36,095 35,941 35,941 Projected Demand (AFY) 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) (AFY) 21,532 19,156 18,381 17,605 17,225 15,704 Table 3.2. Single Dry Year Water Supply Capacity
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Buildout
Water Supply Total (AFY) 26,419 26,571 26,724 26,876 27,029 27,029 Projected Demand (AFY) 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) (AFY) 11,393 9,324 8,855 8,386 8,313 6,792 ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 5 Santa Maria General Plan Update
Table 3.3 Multiple Dry Year Water Supply Capacity
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Buildout
1 st
Year
Supply totals1 29,189 29,662 30,136 30,610 31,084 31,084 Demand totals1 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) 14,163 12,415 12,267 12,120 12,368 10,847 2 nd
Year
Supply totals1 29,605 28,989 28,374 27,758 27,143 27,143 Demand totals1 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) 14,579 11,742 10,505 9,268 8,427 6,906 3 rd
Year
Supply totals1 27,169 26,417 25,665 24,913 24,161 24,161 Demand totals1 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) 12,143 9,170 7,796 6,423 5,445 3,924
4 th
Year
Supply totals1 30,126 30,121 30,116 30,111 30,106 30,106 Demand totals1 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) 15,100 12,874 12,247 11,621 11,390 9,869 5 th

Year2
Supply totals1 25,180 25,180 25,180 25,180 25,180 25,180 Demand totals1 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716 20,237 Surplus/(Deficit) 10,154 7,933 7,311 6,690 6,464 4,943
1 Supply and demand values are in acre-feet.
2 Fifth year demand values have been revised from what is in the UWMP to match those in the first through fourth year scenarios because the UWMP inexplicably shows an increase in demand in the fifth year of a drought.

3.1.2 Storage Capacity
The City’s storage capacity was assessed based on the 2012 UCS. Usable storage volume is approximately 18 MG, distributed across three reservoirs.

Table 3.5 presents current and buildout storage requirements, including operational, fire flow, and emergency storage needs. The operational and emergency storage volumes are calculated as factors of ADD and PHD compared to reliable well capacity. The fire flow storage volume is calculated based on the City’s largest fire flow. (Water Systems Consulting (WSC), Inc, 2015) To meet buildout needs, storage improvements will be required, as indicated in the 2012 UCS.

The 2012 UCS recommended increasing the number of generators in the distribution system from 3 to 5. This analysis found that 5 generators would be sufficient with the addition of the annexed areas. This analysis is summarized in Table 3.6.

ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 6 Santa Maria General Plan Update
Table 3.5. Existing Storage Requirements with Annexation Storage Component
Required Volume (in million gallons)
Existing Buildout
(no improvements)
Buildout
(with 5 Generators)
Operational Storage1 3.2 5.0 3.9
Fire Flow Storage2 0.7 0.7 0.7
Emergency Storage3 4.4 14.5 1.1
Total (MG) = 8.3 20.24 5.7
1 Calculated as 4 hours of PHD minus existing reliable well capacity. Note that the MDD peaking factor was calculated from 2023 production data while the PHD peaking factor was taken from the California Department of Public Health’s criteria.
2 Assumes a fire flow of 3,000 gpm for 4 hours.
3 Calculated as 2 days of ADD minus existing reliable well capacity. 4 Required volumes at buildout are greater than available storage volume.

3.1.3 Distribution System Capacity
Once an annexation area is determined, the City’s hydraulic model will be used to analyze the system’s capability to meet this increased demand. The City’s water system is well looped, has average system pressures between 60 and 80 psi, and has a strong background of mains that are 18-inch diameter or greater. These factors indicate that the distribution system is adequately sized to provide maximum day demand + fire flows under existing plus annexation demands.

Minor distribution system improvements may be recommended to meet build-out demands.

3.2 Wastewater System Capacity
The wastewater capacity analysis evaluates both the WWTP and the wastewater collection system.

3.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
The City’s current WWTP capacity is 8.0 mgd (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, 2010). Table 3.8 compares the current WWTP capacity to various flow conditions.

Table 3.8. WWTP Capacity Evaluation
Existing Existing +
Annexation
Buildout +
Annexation
WWTP Capacity (mgd) 8.0 8.0 8.0
System Flow (mgd) 7.2 8.2 11.2
Surplus/(Deficit) (mgd) 0.8 (0.2) (3.2)
ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 7 Santa Maria General Plan Update
The City is currently updating its wastewater treatment plant master plan and has submitted a time schedule compliance plan to the Regional Water Quality Control Board with timelines for upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP to meet more strict discharge requirements and increased flows due to annexation and buildout. Based on this draft master plan, the WWTP will be expanded in two phases. The first phase, expected to be complete in 2032, will increase the WWTP’s capacity to 10 mgd. The second phase, expected to be complete in 2052, will further increase the WWTP’s capacity to 11.5 mgd. Buildout flows, including annexation, are projected at 11.2 mgd, so no additional improvements will be necessary.

3.2.2 Wastewater Collection System
The annexation will increase wastewater flows and likely require upgrades to the City’s collection system. The existing collection system experiences some capacity issues, specifically in pipes near the WWTP, which can experience surcharging during high flows. The annexation will require either upsizing the City’s existing trunk lines between the annexation area and the WWTP or the installation of dedicated sewer trunk lines from the annexation area to the WWTP.

Final annexation details will determine specific improvements.

4.0 Recommended Infrastructure to Support
Annexation Area
This section addresses requirements outlined in Annex Section 14.B, "Describe the level and range of the proposed sewer and water infrastructure," and Annex Section 14.D, "Indicate any improvements or upgrading of sewer and water facilities that will be required."

4.1 Proposed Infrastructure for Annexation Area
The annexation area will be developed with essential infrastructure, including water distribution system piping, valves, and other components, as well as wastewater collection system piping, manholes, and related appurtenances. Both water and wastewater systems will be integrated into the City’s existing infrastructure, designed to support reliable service to the annexation area.

4.2 Required Improvements of Existing Systems
For the water system, no substantial improvements are anticipated. The current system has adequate supply and storage capacity to accommodate the annexation area, and the areas under consideration fall within the City’s existing pressure zone, eliminating the need for additional capacity adjustments.

The wastewater system, however, will likely require the construction of a new sewer trunk line extending approximately 6.5 to 8.5 miles to effectively serve the annexation area. Additionally, if development proceeds rapidly, the City’s WWTP may require upgrades to meet the increased ATTACHMENT 2
Annexation Study
December 17, 2024
City of Santa Maria 8 Santa Maria General Plan Update
demand from both the annexation area and future growth within the City, ensuring sufficient treatment capacity for planned expansion.

References
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. (2010). Waste Discharge Requirements. Santa Maria: California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2021). City of Santa Maria 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Santa Maria: City of Santa Maria Utilities Department.

United States Census Bureau. (2024, December 16). Santa Maria City, California. Retrieved from census.gov:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santamariacitycalifornia/PST045223 Water Systems Consulting (WSC), Inc. (2015). Utilities Capacity Study for the City of Santa Maria. Santa Maria: City of Santa Maria.

ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment F
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
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
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.

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.

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

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 1 OF 9

ATTACHMENT G

CEQA FINDINGS
CITY OF SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
A. Findings that with regard to certain project and cumulative effects, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

The following topics were discussed in detail within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2045 Santa Maria General Plan Update (SCH # 2025020584) and were determined to result in less than significant impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

1. AIR QUALITY (AQ) AND GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
a. 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. This measure requires that 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 off-road heavy-duty diesel engines to meet CARB-certified Tier 3 or higher emission standards or employ CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters to the extent that this equipment is commercially available. “Commercially available” shall be defined as the availability of required equipment in geographic proximity to the project site and within a reasonable timeframe relative to critical path construction timing. If Tier 3 or higher emission standard equipment or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available, documentation shall be provided by the project applicant to the City stating that Tier 3 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. Therefore, this impact will be Class II, less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
a. 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 BIO1(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. Therefore, this impact will be Class II, less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 2 OF 9
b. 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.

3. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)
a. 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. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requiring the submittal of a historical resources evaluation if determined necessary based on a preliminary review conducted by city staff for any structures that are 45 years of age or older and are proposed to be altered or demolished would reduce impacts to less than significant. 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). Therefore, this impact will be Class II, less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. b. 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. Additionally, implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2(a), CUL2(b), and CUL-2(c) requiring archeological resources assessments prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology, retaining a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource identified through a Phase I archaeological survey, and the completion by a City-approved archaeologist of a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers for projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected would reduce impacts to less than significant.
c. 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. Mitigation Measure CUL-4(a), requires that for any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 3 OF 9
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 projectrelated ground disturbing activities in the project area. Mitigation Measure CUL4(b) requires that 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.

Therefore, this impact will be Class II, less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

4. NOISE (NOI)
a. 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 measure NOI-2 requiring the City of Santa Maria to review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement feasible buffers for construction equipment as standard conditions of approval, 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 Class II, less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

B. Findings that with regard to certain project and cumulative effects, those changes or alterations which mitigate those effects, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

No impacts were identified in the EIR for which mitigation measures were the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency.

C. Findings that with regard to certain project and cumulative effects, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

The EIR identified significant, unavoidable adverse project-specific or cumulative related environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels by the adoption of mitigation measures in the topic areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic.

The City Council finds that these impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 4 OF 9
feasible, but will still remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the following findings.

1. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (AG)
a. 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 to reduce this impact to less than significant.

2. AIR QUALITY (AQ) AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. 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. No feasible mitigation is available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. b. 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. The measures identified in Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2 will be implemented, including requiring 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. As mentioned above, impacts from the 2045 General Plan Update would result in cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2.
c. 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. No feasible mitigation is available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 5 OF 9

3. NOISE
a. 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 longterm 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.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requiring the City of Santa Maria to review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, requiring construction contractors to implement feasible noise reduction measures as standard conditions of approval would reduce these impacts but would not avoid or fully mitigate for the increase in construction and traffic noise in the plan area. As a result, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

4. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. 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. No feasible mitigation is available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

D. Findings that with regard to certain project effects, those effects found to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

The EIR identified the following potential impacts to be less than significant or no impact.

1. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a. 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.

2. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG)
a. 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.

3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
a. 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

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 6 OF 9
migratory wildlife corridors.
b. 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. c. 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.

4. CULTURAL (CUL) AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. 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.

5. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. 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.
b. 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. c. 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.
d. 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.
e. Impact HYD-5. There is no sustainable groundwater management plans for the

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 7 OF 9
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.

6. NOISE (NOI)
a. 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.

7. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. 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.
b. 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.

8. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 8 OF 9
E. CEQA findings of Infeasibility of Alternatives pursuant to PRC Section 21081 and CCR Section 15091
As a Programmatic analysis of a citywide general plan update for a twenty-year planning period, the EIR provides a comparative impact analysis for a range of growth scenarios and policy options under community consideration and concludes that some of the alternatives could potentially lessen some environmental impacts. The City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations make the alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible, based on the EIR analysis, public comment, and Council deliberations as follows:

1. No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the City of Santa Maria would not adopt the 2045 General Plan Update. Instead, development would continue in accordance with the existing General Plan. This alternative assumes that current land use designations, policies, and growth projections would remain in effect, guiding future development and infrastructure decisions. For the purpose of this analysis, the No Project Alternative is assumed to result in reduced overall buildout potential compared to the 2045 General Plan Update, as it reflects continuation of existing land use designations and policies without the proposed changes that would facilitate additional growth. As discussed in detail in Section 6.2.2 of the EIR, this alternative would avoid the potential environmental impacts associated with the increased development intensity and expanded planning strategies in the plan.

While some development would still occur under existing entitlements and zoning regulations, the City would not implement the new land use strategies, environmental protections, or housing and mobility policies in the plan. As a result, the No Project Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update because it would not fully address evolving community needs, state housing requirements (future RHNA cycles), or infrastructure demands anticipated through 2045. Therefore, the city rejects this Alternative.

The findings for the proposed plan set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from future consideration.

2. Infill Only Alternative. Under the Infill Only Alternative, the City of Santa Maria would adopt the 2045 General Plan Update, including all goals and policies.

However, the Infill Only Alternative would exclude the annexation of areas located east of the current City limits and direct development to areas within existing urban or suburban areas such as infill, redevelopment, or increased densities. For the purpose of this analysis, the Infill Only Alternative is assumed to result in a similar overall level of buildout and population growth compared to the 2045 General Plan Update, despite the exclusion of future development in the Eastern Annexation area. As discussed in detail in Section

6.3.2 of the EIR, this alternative would avoid environmental impacts in the annexation area, such as conversion of agricultural land, fragmentation of

ATTACHMENT G

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
PAGE 9 OF 9
open space, or potential effects on biological resources, while potentially exacerbating environmental impacts associated with the increased development density in existing neighborhoods.

While this alternative would reduce the geographic footprint of development, it would result in increased development pressure on existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. As a result, the Infill Only Alternative would not fulfill the primary objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update because it would not fully address evolving community health needs, state housing requirements, or opportunities for connected growth anticipated through 2045. The City therefore rejects this Alternative. The findings for the proposed plan set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from future consideration.

3. Greater Annexation Alternative. Under the Greater Annexation Alternative, the City of Santa Maria would adopt the 2045 General Plan Update, including all goals, policies, and land use changes. However, the Greater Annexation Alternative would include a larger annexation area east of the current City limits. This alternative assumes a similar level of development density would occur in the larger annexation area, resulting in increased total development and an increased population compared to the 2045 General Plan Update. For the purpose of this analysis, the Greater Annexation Alternative is assumed to result in increased overall buildout potential and population growth compared to the 2045 General Plan Update, due to the inclusion of a larger annexation area and expanded Sphere of Influence.

The expanded geographic footprint of the Greater Annexation Alternative would fulfill many of the primary objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update because it would have the capacity to meet state housing requirements and address some community needs; however, the distributed development that may occur under this alternative would not fully address evolving community health needs or opportunities for connected growth anticipated through 2045.

As discussed in detail in Section 6.4.2, of the EIR, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts across many resource areas as the increased footprint would reduce available agricultural land and increase VMT and associated criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. Therefore, the city rejects this Alternative. The findings for the proposed plan set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from future consideration.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PAGE 1 OF 2

ATTACHMENT H
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the benefits of a project against its significant unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). CEQA requires the agency to state in writing the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)).

Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Santa Maria 2045 General Plan (“Project”) to the extent feasible by adopting mitigation measures, and having considered the entire administrative record on the project, the City Council has weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regard to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from the Project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the Project.

The City Council of the City of Santa Maria adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project as required by Section 21081(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that each of the benefits set forth below in this Statement constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the risks of their potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The benefits of the Project, which constitute the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations that justify the approval of the Project are as follows:

1. The Project considers and plans for future growth in the City of Santa Maria through the year 2045 based on the City’s historic growth patterns, current and potential land available for development, and current and future economic and social conditions in Santa Maria. The growth projections were informed by job and population projections from the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) and three cycles of potential Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

2. The Project plans for future growth within existing City boundaries and future planned annexation areas while balancing the need for adequate infrastructure, housing, and economic vitality with the needs for resource management, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PAGE 2 OF 2
environmental protection, and preservation of quality of life for Santa Maria residents.

3. The Project provides a Land Use Policy Map that accounts for existing development, physical constraints, future growth areas including proposed annexation areas, economic development, hazards, and incompatible uses, and assigns densities and use types accordingly to enhance the safety, livability, and economic vitality of Santa Maria.

4. The Project implements principles of sustainable growth by concentrating intensification of existing urban uses primarily along key commercial and transportation corridors (ex. Main Street and Broadway), thereby providing opportunities for a diverse mix of uses while maintaining the City’s existing single family residential neighborhoods.

5. The Project enhances the local economy and provides opportunities for future jobs and business development commensurate with forecasted growth by planning for a mix of residential and commercial development near existing urbanized areas and transportation corridors.

6. The Project improves mobility options through the development of a multi-modal transportation network that enhances connectivity, supports community development patterns, limits traffic congestion, promotes public and alternative transportation methods, and supports the goals of adopted regional transportation plans.

7. The Project is the product of a comprehensive planning effort driven by members of the general public, members of the Technical Advisory Committee, city stakeholders, the Planning Commission and the City Council through numerous surveys, public meetings, hearings, and workshops that resulted in a thoughtful balance of community, economic, social, and environmental interests.

Attachment I
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 1 of 37
CITY OF SANTA MARIA 5.a

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MARCH 4, 2026
Attachment J. Planning Commission Staff Report 3-4-26.docx Property Location: Citywide
The City of Santa Maria Planning Commission will review and consider for recommendation to City Council, certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adoption of the Santa Maria 2045 General Plan including initiation of proceedings to amend the City’s Sphere of Influence and annex the territory designated “Planned Annexation”, and approval of a Zoning Map Amendment repealing and reenacting the City of Santa Maria Official Zoning Map for consistency with the General Plan.

Environmental: Environmental review for this project was completed through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2025020584) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Guidelines.

Planner Contact: Dana Eady, 805-925-0951 ext. 2444; [email protected] RECOMMENDATION:

Take the following actions:

1. By resolution, recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update; and

2. By resolution, recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan, replacing the existing adopted General Plan; and

3. By resolution, recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment (Z2026-0001) repealing and reenacting the City of Santa Maria Official Zoning Map.

DISCUSSION
The City of Santa Maria’s General Plan is a comprehensive document that establishes the community’s vision and provides a framework that will guide decisions on topics such as growth, economic development, and land use through the planning horizon year of 2045. The plan includes goals, policies, and implementation actions in chapters called Elements. The Santa Maria 2045 General Plan supersedes and replaces the City’s Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 2 of 37
current General Plan and has been substantially updated to address local conditions, community priorities and goals, and State law.

This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the February 18, 2026, public hearing where it was continued to March 4, 2026, with direction to staff to respond to the items raised in the following public comment letters:

1. Grower Shipper Association, dated February 18, 2026

2. Urban Planning Concepts, Inc., dated February 13, 2026

3. Urban Planning Concepts, Inc., dated February 16, 2026

4. Urban Planning Concepts, Inc., PowerPoint comments, February 18, 2026

5. Dignity Health Marian Regional Medical Center, dated February 17, 2026 The following table includes a summary of the comments provided in each letter, a staff response, and any recommended changes to be incorporated into the Final General Plan.

Letter 1: Grower Shipper Association, dated February 16, 2026 Comment Summary Staff Response
Circulation Element

1. Page 10-Roundabouts. “It is important
for the City to collaborate with local
communities to be engaged and
involved in the design and
implementation of local roundabouts
where appropriate.” We have
commented extensively that roundabouts
are not always the appropriate solution
for areas frequented by agricultural
vehicles and equipment.

2. “Action CIR-4.2.2: Maintain a truck route
plan identifying streets to be posted as
designated truck routes to avoid sensitive
uses, and to be posted with weight limit
restrictions and accompanied with street
design elements where possible to
discourage their use by heavy vehicles.”
Appropriate and efficient agricultural
transportation corridors must remain
open to avoid irreparable harm to highly
perishable fresh produce. Please refer
to the comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

Revise as follows: “It is important for the City to
collaborate with local communities and to be
engaged and involved in the design and
implementation of local roundabouts to ensure
that they are sited and designed appropriately.

Action CIR-4.2-2 is required per Assembly Bill
(AB) 98, requiring the City to update its
Circulation Element by January 1, 2028,
identifying and establishing specific travel
routes for the transport of goods, materials, or
freight for storage, transfer, or redistribution to
safely accommodate additional truck traffic and
avoid residential areas and concentrations of
sensitive noise receptors.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 3 of 37

3. “Policy CIR-7.1: Reduce VMT. Reduce
VMT below regional averages on a “per
resident” and “per employee” basis where
required…” We are concerned that going
above and beyond already-stringent State
requirements could reduce job and
economic opportunities for residents and
businesses. As a regulatory
requirement, it should instead conform
with State mandates without creating
additional undue burdens. Additional
incentives could be considered but should
not be a mandatory reduction.

In accordance with SB 743 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), Thresholds of
Significance, the City of Santa Maria has
elected to adopt the VMT reduction target set
by CARB for the SBCAG region as the
threshold of significance for VMT impact
determination. Using this threshold, VMT
impacts would be considered potentially
significant if the forecasted rate of residential
VMT per household or VMT per employee for
the project were to exceed 83 percent of the
existing rate of VMT in each category (i.e., at
least a 17 percent reduction in per-unit VMT
would be required for an impact to be
considered less than significant).

Recommend the following changes to Policy
CIR-7.1: Reduce VMT. Reduce VMT in
accordance with the reduction target set by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the
Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments (SBCAG) region below regional
averages on a “per resident” and “per
employee” basis.

Conservation and Open Space Element

1. “Action COS-1.3.1: …• Reduce mowing in
targeted areas (i.e., within agricultural and
habitat buffers and in City open spaces)
to promote natural plant growth and
habitat for pollinators.” This change is
needed to protect agricultural resources
from damaging pests and diseases that
can be harbored in unmanaged lands.

2. “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
Recommend changes to Action COS1.3.1 as
proposed.

Policy COS-2.1 and Action COS-2.1.1 both
include direction regarding the potential future
development of areas that are adjacent to
agricultural uses. These would apply to the
future Planned Annexation area (PA) as well as
areas within City limits that are adjacent to
agricultural uses and are planned for future
development. No changes to these policies are
recommended as additional planning would be
required to implement the policy and action to
ensure that future development takes into
account the location of agricultural uses and
provides sufficient buffers.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 4 of 37
other factors. These include providing
adequate housing, achieving a jobshousing balance, supporting economic sustainability, and advancing other City
interests.” Inducing or placing
incompatible uses, such as sensitives
sites, residential uses, and DACs into
and near agricultural production and
support areas will result in predictable
land use conflicts and cascading
impacts to both agricultural operations
and residents. Please refer to the
comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

3. “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.” A compact urban footprint and
prudent land use planning would be
most beneficial to agricultural resources,
conservation, and open space, rather
than conservation easements or technical
assistance from the City for agricultural
lands within the City’s Sphere of
Influence.

4. “Policy COS-2.2: Sustainable
agriculture. Encourage the adoption of
sustainable agricultural practices to
preserve productivity while protecting
natural environments.” While we also
support various forms of sustainable
agriculture, this Policy is beyond the
scope of the City, overly prescriptive,
and outside of its area of expertise.

5. “Action COS-2.2.1: Support local
agricultural operators to encourage the
continued use and adoption of best
management practices that enhance soil
Recommend deleting Action COS-2.1.2. Area
within the City’s limits and SOI is not zoned for
agriculture and there are no proposed changes
to land use designations or zoning to add
agricultural zoning designations to property
within the City’s limits or in the SOI.

While Policy COS-2.2 is broad in scope, the
intent is to provide direction for the City to
generally support sustainable agricultural
practices. No changes to this policy are
recommended.

Recommend making the changes to Action
COS-2.2.1 as recommended in item #5.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 5 of 37
quality, protect plant health, conserve
water, and reduce soil erosion, including:
• Integrated pest management and
reduction of chemical pesticide use
• Rotational grazing and crop rotation to
enhance soil health and biodiversity •
Agroforestry • Composting” While we
also support the advancement of best
management practices, these comments
are overly prescriptive, not reasonably
feasible for the City to support, not
applicable to agriculture in Santa Maria,
and/or would compromise the food safety
and marketability of the fresh produce
grown in and near the City.

6. “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. These
practices include 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 COS5.2.2: Coordinate with SBCAPCD to report illegal burnings and enforce
SBCAPCD regulations pertaining to
agricultural burnings. Action COS-5.2.3:

Collaborate with SBCAPCD to monitor
pesticide residues in the air and enforce
pesticide use and storage regulations.

These Policies and Actions are overly
prescriptive, already regulated by
various agencies, and beyond the
City’s jurisdiction. Please refer to the
comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

Recommend deleting Action COS-5.2.3 as
these activities are monitored by Santa Barbara
County. No other changes are recommended
to be made as this policy and action address
agricultural operations that could impact
properties within City limits and within the
Planned Annexation (PA) area should it be
annexed and developed in the future.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 6 of 37

7. “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.” Buffers
must be placed on the new use, rather
than the existing agricultural use, and are
not a substitute for good land use
planning. Please refer to the comments
submitted by Somach Simmons & Dunn
on behalf of the Association for additional
information.

8. “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.”
Industrial and commercial uses would
be the most beneficial buffers. We are
concerned about ongoing maintenance of
the vegetative areas, and the potential for
these spaces near agricultural areas to be
reservoirs for agricultural pests, diseases,
and food safety threats, which would be
detrimental to agricultural uses.

The buffer ordinance would be developed
through a public review process, and the focus
would be placed on the new use and how far
that use could be located to agricultural uses.

Recommend the following changes to Action
COS-5.2.4: Update the Municipal Code to
establish a minimum buffer requirement
between existing agricultural uses, including
agricultural supply businesses, and new
development based on the type of use.

Sensitive land uses, including residential uses,
schools, day cares, senior homes, and
hospitals, require the largest buffer distance
from agricultural and related uses.

Recommend deleting Action COS-5.2.5. The
buffers are addressed in Action COS-5.2.4.

Economic Development Element

1. “Policy ECON-2.8: Annexation lands.

Support efforts for the annexation of
land into the city to promote business
expansion and residential growth.

Leverage annexation as a tool to
accommodate economic development,
enhance infrastructure, and create
opportunities for sustainable urban
growth.” Please refer to the comments
submitted by Somach Simmons & Dunn
on behalf of the Association for additional
information.

No changes to Policy ECON-2.8 are
recommended. The 2045 General Plan
includes an area that is designated as Planned
Annexation (PA). This policy would directly
apply to the future development of this area
should it be annexed by LAFCO.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 7 of 37
Health and Environmental Justice Element

1. Page 3. “(DACs) are areas identified by
the California Environmental Protection
Agency or low-income areas that are
may be disproportionately affected by
environmental pollution and other
hazards that can lead to negative health
effects, exposure, or environmental
degradation." Page 5. “Below are
summaries of environmental health
factors that may affect DACs in Santa
Maria.” We have exhaustively
commented that potential risk does not
equal exposure and these inaccuracies
must be corrected.

2. Page 5. “Relative to other communities
in California, Santa Maria experiences
higher rates of pesticide exposure, as
the majority of census tracts in the city
are above the 80th percentile for
pesticide use in CalEnviroScreen 4.0.

Pesticide use during agricultural
production poses significant public health
risks since both short-term and long-term
Exposure to certain pesticides are linked
to serious illnesses such as cancers,
pregnancy complications, and
developmental issues—especially for
children, pregnant women, older adults,
and agricultural workers. DACs that are
located near agricultural fields, including
farmworker communities in and around
Santa Maria, could face heightened
exposure risks. We have exhaustively
commented that potential risk does not
equal exposure and these inaccuracies
must be corrected.

3. HEJ Page 7. “H-2A Housing. The
increasing number of H-2A Visa workers
in agricultural jobs and the associated
requirements for employers to supply
worker housing have heightened the
need for increasing the amount of safe
and affordable housing in the city.” We
appreciate the appropriate deletions
elsewhere from the Policy Frameworks
Draft; this final reference needs to be
deleted to conform with the City’s
dedication to fair housing.

No changes to this section are recommended.

DACs are defined by the Cal EPA as described
in the General Plan.

Recommend revising as follows: Relative to
other communities in California, Santa Maria
experiences higher rates of pesticide
exposure, as the majority of census tracts in
the city are above the 80th percentile for
pesticide use in CalEnviroScreen 4.0.

Pesticide use during agricultural production
poses significant public health risks since both
short-term and long-term Exposure to certain
pesticides are linked to serious illnesses such
as cancers, pregnancy complications, and
developmental issues—especially for children,
pregnant women, older adults, and
agricultural workers. DACs that are located
near agricultural fields, including farmworker
communities in and around Santa Maria,
could face heightened exposure risks.

Recommend revising as follows:
“H-2A Housing. The increasing number of H-2A
Visa workers in agricultural jobs and The
associated requirements for employers to
supply worker housing have heightened the
need for increasing the amount of safe and
affordable housing in the city.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 8 of 37

4. “Policy HEJ-1.1: Protect against
industrial pollution. Prevent industrial
and commercial facilities from exposing
sensitive land uses (e.g., schools,
playgrounds, housing, hospitals, senior
centers, and daycare centers) to
harmful air pollution and toxic
chemicals, especially in DACs that
have experienced disproportionate
pollution burdens, by carefully analyzing
proposed development and the
expansion of industrial and commercial
uses.” Please refer to the comments
submitted by Somach Simmons & Dunn
on behalf of the Association for additional
information.

5. “Policy HEJ-1.2: Enforce truck routes.

Ensure local adherence to the City’s most
recent truck routes map and regulations
that aim to reduce significant traffic and
pollution impacts on homes, schools,
childcare centers, senior centers, and
other sensitive land uses.” Please refer
to the comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

6. “Policy HEJ-1.4: Promote healthy farming
techniques. Support sustainable
agricultural practices in and around the
City of Santa Maria. Action HEJ-1.4.1:

Support the Santa Barbara County
Agriculture/Weights & Measures
Department’s efforts to identify
communities that should be prioritized
for education and interventions to reduce
farms’ pesticide use, limit pesticide drift
onto communities, protect farm workers
against pesticide exposure, ensure
compliance with pesticide spraying time
blocks, and support the use of Integrated
Pest Management practices. Action
HEJ-1.4.2: Work collaboratively with
Santa Barbara County’s Agricultural
It is important to consider incompatible uses
and impacts to sensitive land uses from
proposed and expanded development.

Therefore, staff recommends the following
changes to Policy HEJ-1.1:

Protect against potential exposure to industrial
pollution. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses
(e.g., schools, senior centers, and daycare
centers) near existing industrial, commercial,
and agricultural uses which have the potential
to Prevent industrial and commercial facilities
from exposing sensitive land uses (e.g.,
schools, playgrounds, housing, hospitals,
senior centers, and daycare centers) to result
in exposure to harmful air pollution and toxic
chemicals, especially in DACs that have
experienced disproportionate pollution
burdens, by carefully analyzing proposed
development. and the expansion of industrial
and commercial uses
Policy HEJ-1.2 is required per Assembly Bill
(AB) 98, requiring the City to identify and
establish specific travel routes for the transport
of goods, materials, or freight for storage,
transfer, or redistribution to safely
accommodate additional truck traffic and avoid
residential areas and concentrations of
sensitive noise receptors.

In accordance with SB 1000, the environmental
justice element, or related environmental
justice goals, policies, and objectives
integrated in other elements, shall do all of the
following: (A) Identify objectives and policies to
reduce the unique or compounded health risks
in disadvantaged communities by means that
include, but are not limited to, the reduction of
pollution exposure, including the improvement
of air quality, and the promotion of public
facilities, food access, safe and sanitary
homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify
objectives and policies to promote civic
engagement in the public decision-making
process. (C) Identify objectives and policies
that prioritize improvements and programs that
address the needs of disadvantaged
communities. This policy and action items were
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 9 of 37
Commissioner’s Office and the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation to
enforce the County’s agricultural buffer
zones and the installation of vegetative
barriers to minimize land use conflicts;
determine buffers for proposed projects;
limit pesticide drift; and protect farmers,
workers, and residents from harms
related to agricultural uses.” Please refer
to the comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

7. “Policy HEJ-1.8: Preserve water quality.

Continue to ensure that Santa Maria
residents have access to clean, safe,
affordable, and accessible water for
drinking, cooking, and sanitation, by
working with the County, State, and
Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board to guard against potential
contamination from fertilizer-related
impacts and surface stormwater
impacts.” Please refer to the comments
submitted by Somach Simmons & Dunn
on behalf of the Association for
additional information.”
developed through the public process to
address the SB1000 requirements noted above
for Santa Maria. No changes are
recommended.

Recommend revising Policy HEJ-1.8 as
proposed.

Land Use Element

1. “Action LU-1.1.3: Amend the Area 9
Specific Plan to allow low-density
residential uses along A Street, consistent
with the LMDR designation.” We oppose
amending the Area 9 Specific Plan to
allow low-density residential uses along A
Street that are unrelated to the
surrounding agricultural and industrial
uses. This action is counter to many of the
other pillars in the Draft General Plan and
EIR. To maintain compatibility for
agricultural, residential, and sensitive
uses, we oppose inducing residential
and sensitive uses into and near spaces
intended for agricultural, industrial, and
commercial uses.

The preferred land use alternative selected by
the City of Santa Maria City Council in 2023
included amending the general plan land use
designation and zoning of the CPO designated
and zoned area in Area 9 to single-family
residential. A future Specific Plan Amendment
would be required prior to any single-family
residential development in this area. No
changes to this Action are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 10 of 37

2. Policy LU-1.2 regarding Infill
Development. This draft falls short in
fulfilling opportunities to revitalize key
areas of the City without impacting
immediate and adjacent agricultural
resources. The prior draft language
should be restored.

3. “Policy LU-2.1: Planned Annexation
area. Expand Sphere of Influence and
annex the Planned Annexation areas
identified on the General Plan Land Use
Map to meet housing and jobs
development goals.” Please refer to the
comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

4. Policy LU-2.3: Future Specific Plans…. •
Buffer schools, parks, and homes from
infrastructure, major roadways, the Santa
Maria regional landfill, industrial land
uses, agricultural land uses, and other
land uses that may produce odor or noise
or negatively impact air quality generate
land use conflicts.” Please refer to the
comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

5. “Policy LU-4.2: Industrial on major
corridors. Prohibit new industrial,
manufacturing, and heavy polluting uses
in the Main Street and Broadway Corridor
Mixed-use designated areas, as they
detract from creating a walkable mixeduse environment. Policy LU-4.3: Mixeduse development. Support vertical and horizontal mixed-use development,
integrating residential uses along
Broadway and Main Street to promote a
pedestrian-focused environment in the
core of the city and reduce vehicle trips.”
We oppose the prohibition of industrial
and other uses west of Blosser Road.

We oppose changing the land use
designation west of Blosser Rd from
Commercial and Industrial to CorridorMixed Use. We are concerned that these changes would induce residential, other
The proposed land use designations and
increased land use densities were included in
the preferred land use alternative that was
selected by the City Council as a basis for the
planned growth in the City. No changes are
recommended.

No changes to Policy LU-2.1 are
recommended. The preferred land use
alternative selected by the City Council
included the SOI expansion and future
annexation of land as described in the Final
General Plan.

No changes to Policy LU-2.3 are
recommended. Implementing appropriate
buffers in future Specific Plans, specifically
within the Planned Annexation (PA) area will be
necessary. The policy states “other land uses”,
which may include a range of uses.

The Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation
was developed through the Preferred Land Use
Alternative phase of the project and was
reviewed and selected by the City Council in
2023. This area is zoned PD/C-2, General
Commercial. Mixed-use developments are
currently allowed under the City’s mixed-use
Ordinance in the PD/C-2 zone. No changes to
the zoning are currently proposed. New
Industrial, Manufacturing, and heavy polluting
uses within the City are required to be located
within the appropriate industrial zones in the
City and outside of areas that are zoned for
mixed-use residential types of developments.

No changes to Policy LU-4.2 are
recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 11 of 37
sensitive uses, and potentially DACs into
and near working spaces, including
industries that support agriculture, and
result in predictable land use conflicts.

6. “Policy LU-5.3: Location of new
housing. Discourage single-family
housing production directly adjacent to
high-intensity commercial, agricultural,
and industrial uses, in favor of land
use transitions and buffers between
differing intensities of development.”
Please refer to the comments submitted
by Somach Simmons & Dunn on behalf of
the Association for additional information.

7. This draft of the Land Use Element had
introduced inconsistencies in its
description and treatment of agricultural
lands. For example, LU 9.1 says
“Preserve agricultural resources in the
city on land not proposed for future
development: and LU-9.3 calls out “lands
designated for agricultural uses” while
page 6 states “No land within City
limits is designated or zoned
specifically for agriculture; agricultural
uses operate as transitional uses until
development is planned for an area.” It
would be important to have clarification
and consistency before finalizing the plan.

8. Policy 9.1: “…Preserve agricultural
resources in the city on land not
proposed for future development,
specifically those with State or local
importance….” The draft of this policy
is inconsistent and undermines the future
vitality of agriculture both within and
adjacent to the City. The prior draft
language should be reinstated.

9. “Policy LU-9.3: Agricultural buffers.

Update the Municipal Code to require
buffers between new development and
lands designated for agricultural uses.

Examples of buffers include but are not
limited to roadways, stormwater basins,
and landscaped or open space areas.”
Recommend revising Policy LU-5.3 as
proposed. It is feasible for new housing to be
located near agricultural areas provided that
adequate buffers are planned and
implemented as a part of future specific plans
and development plans.

Policy LU-9.3, requires the Municipal Code to
be updated to require buffers between new
development and lands designated for
agricultural use. This policy is intended to apply
to areas that may be utilized for agriculture that
are in existing city limits and within the
unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County.

The final General Plan was completed in
accordance with direction from the City Council
through selection of the Preferred Land Use
Alternative which included the Planned
Annexation (PA) area of 985-acres located east
of Highway 101. Should this area be annexed
into City limits and developed, agricultural
buffers would need to be considered and
implemented where required. No changes to
Policy LU-9.1 or 9.3 are recommended.

See response to #7, above. The agricultural
buffer ordinance would be developed through a
future effort with public input and required
approval by the City Council. Policy LU-9.3
does not limit the types of buffers that could be
included within the ordinance, it only provides
an example of types of buffers that could be
considered. No changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 12 of 37
As stated previously, the uses allowed in
the buffer and the total distance will
determine whether buffers would be
helpful or make land use conflicts even
worse. For example, active
recreational uses and unmanaged
reservoirs for pests and diseases would
not be helpful mitigation measures. The
most useful approach is to exercise good
land use planning. This includes industrial
and commercial uses as potential buffers
between agriculture and residential and
sensitive uses.

10.“Policy LU-12.4: Walking paths as
buffers. Utilize walking paths and linear
parks as a transition and/or buffer
between non-compatible uses or
noticeable changes in building scale or
density.” Active recreational uses are not
compatible as an agricultural buffer.

11. “Policy LU-13.1: Land use buffers.

Require the use of buffers between
incompatible land uses by using contextappropriate buffers such as berms, walls, landscaping, walking and bike
paths, and arterial streets, where
appropriate and depending on
neighboring use, to avoid adverse
impacts to either use. Action LU-13.1.1:

Update the City’s municipal code to
protect sensitive land uses by, for
example, requiring a buffer between
sensitive uses and local sources of air
pollution such as industrial and
commercial facilities (e.g., warehouses,
processing plants, factories, landfills,
hazardous waste facilities) and avoid
locating new sensitive land uses near
existing agricultural, commercial, and
industrial facilities. Developments should
incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures that reduce potential pollution
exposure.” Good land use planning is
mutually beneficial to both types of uses.

See response to #7 and # 9, above. This policy
addresses many types of uses that could be
noncompatible. Agricultural buffers will be
developed that are specific to that use. No
changes are recommended.

No changes to Policy-13.1 are recommended.

This policy provides examples of buffers but
does not limit the types of buffers that could be
utilized. Action LU-13.1.1 addresses the
development of a buffer ordinance within the
municipal code which will be a future City effort
through a public hearing process. Avoiding
siting incompatible uses from each other is
discussed in other policies in the Land Use
Element (such as Policy LU-5.3). No changes
are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 13 of 37

12. “Policy LU-13.2: Residential
encroachment. Protect residential
neighborhoods and schools from
encroachment by incompatible
nonresidential uses such as light
industrial, general industrial, and heavy
commercial/manufacturing, and the
impacts associated with adjacent
nonresidential activities. Protect existing
agricultural, industrial, and commercial
operations from residential
encroachment, resulting in impacts to
nonresidential activities.” Good land use
planning is mutually beneficial to both
types of uses.

Noise Element

1. “Policy N-2.2: Industrial and agricultural
traffic noise reduction measures.

Evaluate and identify measures and
strategies to reduce traffic noise from
industrial and agricultural truck traffic,
and coordinate with local businesses to
implement the measures and strategies
as needed. Action N-2.2.1: Coordinate
with businesses to identify possible
limitations on local truck traffic, including
loading and unloading, specific routes,
times, and speed limits appropriate for
each zoning district, while ensuring
compatibility with essential business
operations. Action N-2.2.2: Work with
local businesses and law enforcement to
minimize traffic noise by encouraging the
use of preferred routes and delivery
times.” Limitations on transportation
options would adversely impact
agricultural resources and are also
counter to the emergency evacuation
and response infrastructure goals
outlined in the Safety Element. Please
refer to the comments submitted by
Somach Simmons & Dunn on behalf of
the Association for additional information.

No changes to Policy LU-13.2 are
recommended. This Policy focuses on
protecting sensitive land uses (residences and
schools) from incompatible industrial,
commercial, and manufacturing land uses. The
protection of Agricultural resources from future
residential types of development would occur
through the establishment of buffers as
described above.

Emergency response and evacuation planning
would be considered through the
implementation of Action N-2.2.2. The
language in this Policy and Actions directs the
city to look at possible traffic noise reduction
measures that would be feasible to local
businesses and law enforcement. Future work
on this item would be required through
thoughtful collaboration with local businesses,
the City’s Police and Fire Departments, and
public input. No changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 14 of 37
Safety Element

1. Page 7. “Agricultural practices
exacerbate local flood issues by causing
pooling, reducing ground absorption, and
blocking drainage systems.” Agricultural
discharges are regulated by the Water
Quality Control Board. It is
inappropriate to generalize agricultural
practices or single out one industry.

This reference must be removed.

Furthermore, there are major technical
flaws in this argument.

2. “Figure S-7: Oil and Natural Gas
Network.” The Association has
previously encouraged consideration of
potential annexation of the Bradley Lands
as a preferable alternative to annexation
of prime agricultural lands on the Santa
Maria Valley floor. Some argued this
was not feasible due current or former oil
and gas locations in Bradley Lands.

Figure S-7 illustrates similar intensity of
Oil and Gas in the southern portion of the
proposed annexation alternative parallel
to Highway 101.

3. “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.

Action S-3.2.1: Work with the County of
Santa Barbara to educate agricultural
operators on best management
practices to address runoff and irrigation
control and the implementation of
efficient onsite drainage systems.

Action S-3.2.2: Collaborate with local
agricultural operators and the Cachuma
Resource Conservation District to
implement and enforce agricultural runoff
control measures.” Please refer to the
comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

4. “Policy S-3.6: Dam and levee
inundation safety.” Action S-3.6.4:

Support legal and technical efforts to
retain the essential functions of
Recommend making the changes outlined in
item #1.

The area proposed for annexation in the
General Plan was selected by the City Council
through the preferred land use alternative. No
changes are recommended.

Policy S-3.2, Action S-3.2.1, and Action S-3.2.2
provide direction for the City to coordinate with
the County of Santa Barbara regarding any
potential agricultural related runoff issues. No
changes to this policy or action items are
recommended.

Action S-3.6.4 was previously deleted.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 15 of 37
Twitchell Reservoir for flood control
and groundwater recharge purposes.

5. “Policy S-8.2, Climate resilient design.

Require new development and
redevelopment to incorporate climateresilient design to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Action 8.2.1: Adopt
regulatory standards such as CALGreen
Tier 1 and 2 to encourage energy
efficiency and climate-smart design for
new development and redevelopment.”
We are concerned with the impacts to
economic viability of going above and
beyond California regulatory
requirements, including the CA Building
Code; voluntary incentives should be
reinstated.

6. Limitations to transportation options
identified elsewhere are counter to the
emergency evacuation and response
infrastructure goals outlined in the Safety
Element.

Recommend the following revision to Policy S8.2: Climate resilient design. Require Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate climate-resilient
design to mitigate the impacts of climate
change.

Action 8.2.1 directs the City to adopt regulatory
standards to encourage energy efficiency and
climate-smart design for new development and
redevelopment. The Action provides an
example of CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 but
does not limit or require these standards
specifically. The regulatory standards
ultimately adopted by the city will be developed
through a public hearing process with input
from the public and decision makers.

See response above regarding Noise Element
#1.

Draft EIR and Alternatives
“Agricultural Resources-Project Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
“DEIR 4.1-10: “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.”
“DEIR 4.1-13. 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

Page 4 ends

Santa Maria City CouncilMay 5, 2026

Santa Maria City Council
May 5, 2026