New residential, commercial, and industrial uses would be introduced through both new construction and the conversion of existing properties to different land use designations. The plan’s emphasis on increased density and clustered development increases the likelihood of redevelopment, or additional development, on already-developed lots. Future development may involve renovations, demolitions, or new construction, which could affect historical resources that have not yet been formally evaluated but may be eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or local registers under CEQA. Over the 20-year planning horizon through 2045, additional buildings will surpass the 450-year age threshold, making them potential historic resources. As a result, redevelopment activities could lead to the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of such resources.
Response 6.160
The commenter suggests the second paragraph of the Impact CUL-2 discussion should be revised to clarify impacts to archaeological resources would occur only south of Betteravia Road.
The commenter’s suggestion to limit the disclosure of potential impacts to archaeological resources in Subsection 4.4.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, to areas south of Betteravia Road would not provide adequate disclosure of the project’s potential environmental impacts under CEQA. It is not possible to determine with certainty where archaeological resources may exist below the ground surface, and restricting the analysis to a single portion of the city could omit locations from environmental review where resources may be present. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 requires that an EIR evaluate all potentially significant environmental effects of a project throughout the entire plan area. For this reason, the Draft EIR considers the potential for archaeological resources across the full plan area. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.161
The commenter suggests the third paragraph of the Impact CUL-2 discussion should be revised to clarify that impacts to archaeological resources would occur only south of Betteravia Road.
Refer to Response 6.160 for a discussion of potential impacts to archaeological resources.
Response 6.162
The commenter suggests Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a), CUL-2(b), and CUL-2(c) should only apply to development south of Betteravia Road.
Refer to Response 6.160 for a discussion of potential impacts to archaeological resources. 2-122
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.163
The commenter suggests the Impact CUL-4 discussion and Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and CUL- 4(b) are revised to only apply to development south of Betteravia Road.
Refer to Response 6.160 for a discussion of potential impacts to archaeological resources.
Response 6.164
The commenter states that the last paragraph of Impact CUL-4 implies all future projects will require tribal consultation, which the commenter views as unnecessary because consultation was already conducted for the General Plan update and planning area without response. The commenter expresses concern that requiring additional consultation would result in extra time and cost. They also request revisions to Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and (b) but do not specify which revisions they would like to see.
Subsection 4.4.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, explains that development facilitated by the plan would undergo project-specific tribal cultural resource consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.2 and Policy COS-7.3. PRC Section 21084.2 requires consultation only for projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. This requirement does not apply to all future projects. For example, projects that are exempt from CEQA would not require consultation. The EIR accurately describes CEQA requirements, which mandate consultation only when a project could result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Because the commenter does not recommend any specific revisions to Mitigation Measures CUL- 4(a) and (b) or provide evidence that any revisions are necessary, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.165
The commenter states that the Cumulative Impacts discussion on page 4.4-19 should specify that only structures within the 4-square-mile area are considered potentially historic based on construction dates. The commenter recommends limiting additional studies for future development to this area and suggests amending the ordinance to apply only to buildings in this area that were built before 1960, or possibly earlier.
Refer to Responses 6.157 and 6.160 for a discussion regarding structures that may qualify as potential historic resources and restricting environmental analysis to portions of the plan area, as opposed to the whole plan area. The comment regarding revisions to the ordinance does not pertain to the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the revision of other City documents will be provided to decision makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.166
The commenter suggests additional information regarding Twitchell Dam, the State Water Project, wastewater discharge, Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin adjudication, agricultural conservation, and reduced urban water use be added to the setting of the Hydrology and Water Quality section.
2-123
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
The information provided by the commenter pertains primarily to water management and water supply. These topics are discussed in detail in Section 4.8, Utilities and Service Systems. The evaluation of hydrology and water quality considers potential impacts related to impairment of water quality, groundwater recharge, alterations of drainage patterns, pollutant release, and conflicts with water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.167
The commenter suggests revising the last sentence of the Groundwater discussion in Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, to state that groundwater blended is State water used for industrial, municipal, and government uses within the city.
The language the commenter refers to in Subsection 4.5.1.b, Groundwater, is accurate and describes the current use of groundwater in Santa Maria. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.168
The commenter suggests revising the first paragraph of the Surface Water Quality discussion in Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, to clarify that agricultural operations are not a substantial source of pollutants in Santa Maria and that all urban agricultural operations are located to the west of Santa Maria and would not impact surface water in Santa Maria.
The information included within Subsection 4.5.1.c, Surface Water Quality, is derived from the General Plan Environmental Existing Conditions Report, prepared by the City of Santa Maria in 2020.
The General Plan Environmental Existing Conditions Report represents the most recent available information regarding stormwater runoff from agricultural operations in Santa Maria.
In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Subsection 4.5.1.c, Surface Water Quality:
Land use affects the quality of surface water in the city. There are large agricultural operations uses within the city that may contribute to surface water pollution. These operations uses are a substantial source of sediment which enters the city’s storm drain system (City of Santa Maria 2020). Additionally, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer are pollutants associated with agricultural operations uses that affect surface water quality within the city. Pollutants within urbanized areas of the city, such as heavy metals hydrocarbons, detergents, fertilizers, and pesticides, and construction activities which can cause erosion are additional sources of surface water pollution which impact water quality within the city (City of Santa Maria 2020).
Response 6.169
The commenter suggests revising the second paragraph of the Surface Water Quality discussion in Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, to separate the discussion of the Santa Maria River from the rest of the paragraph, and to state that the chemicals mentioned in this discussion are being reduced by agricultural operators.
The comment pertaining to paragraph delineation does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, nor would it change the analysis within the Draft EIR. Refer to Response 6.9 for a 2-124
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis.
The information on chemicals and total maximum daily loads provided in Subsection 4.5.1.c, Surface Water Quality, in the Draft EIR are based on information from the California State Water Board and represent existing conditions. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.170
The commenter states that the Groundwater Quality discussion in Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, should be revised to note that total dissolved solids levels have improved over the last 30 years. The commenter suggests adding the second sentence of the paragraph to the Surface Water Quality discussion and revising the whole paragraph.
The Groundwater Quality discussion in Subsection 4.5.1.c, Water Quality, accurately describes the current conditions of groundwater quality within the plan area and meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which requires an EIR to describe the existing environmental setting and identify applicable federal, state, and local plans, policies, and regulations relevant to the project.
This section specifies that the environmental setting must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, which serves as the baseline for determining the significance of impacts. The commenter’s suggested revisions would not alter the analysis or conclusions within the EIR. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.171
The commenter suggests revising the Flood Hazards discussion to include information on City collaboration with the County of Santa Barbara Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the Santa Maria levee, and the Twitchell Dam. The commenter asks where the location of Guadalupe Lake is and what a seiche is.
The Flood Hazards discussion in Subsection 4.5.1.c, Water Quality, sufficiently describes the current conditions of flood hazards within the plan area and meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which requires an EIR to describe the existing environmental setting and identify applicable federal, state, and local plans, policies, and regulations relevant to the project. This section specifies that the environmental setting must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, which serves as the baseline for determining the significance of impacts. The commenter’s suggested revisions would not alter the analysis or conclusions within the Draft EIR.
As discussed in Section 4.5.1.d, Guadalupe Lake is located approximately three miles from the city. A seiche is a standing wave that occurs in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake. It is typically caused by external forces like strong winds, atmospheric pressure changes, or seismic activity. As discussed in Impact HYD-4, the city is not at risk of being inundated due to seiche. In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to correct the spelling of “Guadalupe” in Subsection 4.5.1.c:
2-125
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Groundwater quality varies within the Santa Maria Valley. Total dissolved solids are known pollutants in groundwater within the Santa Maria Watershed. Additionally, petroleum production by-product (diluent) has been found in groundwater below the Guadalupe Dunes and nearby areas (City of Santa Maria 2020).
In addition, the following revisions have been made to correct the spelling of “Guadalupe” in Subsection 4.5.1.d:
Santa Maria is approximately 11.4 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. According to the California Department of Conservation, no part of the city is within a tsunami hazard zone (DOC 2025).
The city is approximately three miles from Guadalupe Lake. Due to the distance and intervening topography, the city is not at risk of being inundated due to a seiche.
Response 6.172
The commenter suggests revising Figure 4.5-1 to label the Santa Maria River, Santa Maria levee, and Orcutt Creek. The commenter suggest including a regional map to show the location of Twitchell Dam and Guadalupe Lake.
Figure 4.5‑1, Flood Hazards in Santa Maria, in Subsection 4.5.2.a, Federal Regulations, illustrates flood hazards within the City and highlights the Santa Maria River and Guadalupe Lake as being within the 100‑year floodplain. In response to this comment, Figure 4.5-1 has been updated in the Final EIR.
Response 6.173
The commenter suggests including a discussion on the Supreme Court decision regarding the definition of Waters of the United States in the Regulatory Setting discussion on page 4.5-5.
Refer to Response 6.121 for a discussion on the rationale for not including a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (May 2023) on Waters of the United States.
Response 6.174
The commenter suggests revising the language in Policy S-3.3 to read “onsite detention basins” rather than onsite detention ponds. The commenter suggests revising Policy S-3.4 to state “Coordinate with County Flood Control to maintain and upgrade…”.
This comment does not pertain to the to the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR.
Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.175
The commenter suggests revising the impact summary of Impact HYD-2 to state “Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan would incrementally increase…”. The commenter suggests stating that the Santa Maria Water Conservation District and Twitchell Management Authority would assure adequate groundwater quality and groundwater elevations within the basin. 2-126
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
The commenter is referring to the Impact Summary statement in Subsection 4.5.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Impact Summary statement is intended to provide a brief overview of the overall impact. The following impact analysis provides additional details regarding potential impacts of the 2045 General Plan Update. In addition, the first sentence of the impact analysis states that development facilitated by the plan would incrementally increase the amount of impervious surface area, as requested by the commenter. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.176
The commenter suggests revising the first sentence of Impact HYD-2 to clarify that impervious surface areas could be increased within the infill areas of Santa Maria and the annexation area, which would result in incremental reductions in recharge and infiltration. The commenter also suggests removing the word “River” from “Santa Maria River Valley Basin.” The reference to the Santa Maria River Valley Basin in Subsection 4.5.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, is correct as written in the Draft EIR and does not need to be changed. The commenter’s statement that these changes would occur incrementally is conveyed in the first part of the sentence. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.177
The commenter suggests removing the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Impact HYD-2 discussion.
The sentence referred to by the commenter in Subsection 4.5.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, states that implementation of general plan policy S-3.3 would help reduce impervious surfaces associated with construction under the 2045 General Plan Update by requiring low‑impact design features, such as permeable pavement. This policy is intended to minimize the amount of new impervious surfaces to the greatest extent feasible. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.178
The commenter asks for details regarding groundwater rights the City has based on the adjudication of the groundwater basin and notes groundwater supplies are augmented by other water supplies.
The commenter also suggests removing the word “River” from instances of the use of “Santa Maria River Valley Basin.”
Additional information on the City’s groundwater rights is included in Subsection 4.5.2.c, Local Regulations. Refer to Response 6.176 for a discussion on the correct terminology for the Santa Maria River Valley Basin. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.179
The commenter states the Rivergate Roemer Specific Plan area is within the 100-year floodplain and development in that area will need to be elevated above the floodplain and a map revision will need to be processed with FEMA.
2-127
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
All new development facilitated by the General Plan Update would comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing development in flood hazard areas. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.180
The commenter suggests correcting the spelling of Guadalupe Lake in Impact HYD-4, adding an explanation that the levee protects Santa Maria in the event of a Twitchell Dam failure, and removing the reference to Lopez Reservoir due to its distance from Santa Maria. The commenter also requests a definition of a seiche.
The following revision has been made to Subsection 4.5.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures:
“The city is approximately three miles from Guadalupe Lake.” The analysis in Impact HYD-4 indicates that the city is not within the dam inundation area for Lopez Reservoir or Twitchell Reservoir. Therefore, if either dam failed, the floodwaters would not be anticipated to reach the city, based on the California Division of Safety of Dams information as cited in Impact HYD-4. Refer to Response 6.171 for a definition of seiche.
Response 6.181
The commenter suggests that the Bureau of Land Management, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and other federal agencies should be added to Policy S-3.6 for coordination regarding dam and levee safety and inundation.
This comment does not pertain to the to the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR.
Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.182
The commenter suggests that Impact HYD-5 is inaccurate, as there is an adjudicated order management plan coordinated with the Twitchell Management Authority and the Santa Maria Water Conservation District. The commenter requests the discussion be rewritten to define the agencies that manage the groundwater basin.
The Twitchell Management Authority prepares annual reports that document existing groundwater conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Basin and provide recommendations for management actions.
While the Twitchell Management Authority plays an important role in monitoring and reporting, it does not enforce policies or conservation measures. This management authority differs from government agencies that implement and enforce Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Twitchell Management Authority’s reports do not constitute a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. A Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan includes components such as basin setting, water budgets, sustainable management criteria, projects and actions, and monitoring networks to achieve long-term groundwater sustainability. The Twitchell 2-128
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Management Authority’s role is focused on reporting and recommending actions within the adjudicated framework, rather than implementing a comprehensive sustainability plan.
According to the City of Santa Maria’s Urban Water Management Plan, the Twitchell Management Authority also functions as a transfer agency, facilitating permanent and temporary transfers of water rights within the Santa Maria River Valley Basin. However, these water transfers are administrative actions related to water allocation and are not connected to water quality, which is the focus of Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.183
The commenter suggests revising the Cumulative Impacts discussion on pages 4.5-16 and 4.5-17 based on previous comments on the Hydrology and Water Quality section.
The commenter’s statement regarding the cumulative impacts discussion is general and does not include specific recommendations for edits or clarifications. Refer to Response 6.9 for a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.184
The commenter suggests revising the Cumulative Impacts discussion on pages 4.5-16 and 4.5-17 to discuss the Twitchell Management Authority’s influence on groundwater quality and quantity within the basin.
Refer to Response 6.182 for a discussion of the Twitchell Management Authority.
Response 6.185
The commenter suggests revising the Sensitive Receptors discussion on page 4.6-4 to clarify the noise-sensitive land uses listed are identified in the current General Plan.
The following revision has been made to Subsection 4.6.1.c, Sensitive Receptors, in response to this comment:
The current Santa Maria General Plan Noise Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses as residential areas (including single-family, duplex, multiple-family, and mobile home), motels/hotels, schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of worship (City of Santa Maria 2009), shown in Figure 4.6-1.
Response 6.186
The commenter suggests adding another column to Table 4.6-3 that identifies segments of roadways that have existing sound walls or abutting structures that limit noise levels.
The purpose of Table 4.6-3, Existing Traffic Noise Levels Along Roadway Segments within Subsection
4.6.1.d, Existing Noise Environment, is to list the existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments. This table displays the existing noise levels based on average daily trip roadway volume at a distance of 50-feet. The traffic noise levels in Table 4.6-3, as well as the noise contours depicted in Figure 4.6-3, are conservative estimates of existing noise along roadways. Traffic noise levels and 2-129
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
noise contours were determined using average daily traffic and estimated using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The Traffic Noise Prediction Model takes into account speed limits, number of lanes, ground type, and vehicle mix. This approach provides a conservative estimate of actual noise levels, which may be attenuated as a result of sound walls, abutting structures, vegetation, or other obstructions to line-of-sight transmission. This approach to evaluating roadway noise levels follows the typical industry practice for General Plan level evaluation, and is appropriate for a programmatic environmental document. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.187
The commenter suggests updating Figure 4.6-1 to include the Enos Ranch project, Skyview Project, and other projects approved within recent years.
Figure 4.6-1 of the Draft EIR depicts noise sensitive land uses utilizing the City’s existing land use map. Though additional noise sensitive land uses have been approved in recent years, this map is meant to be representative of land uses in the city and may not reflect all approved projects in the city. The figure is intended to support City decision-making and should not be read as representing precise, site-specific conditions or all existing noise sensitive land uses. In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Subsection 4.6.1.c:
The current Santa Maria General Plan Noise Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses as residential areas (including single-family, duplex, multiple-family, and mobile home), motels/hotels, schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of worship (City of Santa Maria 2009), shown in Figure 4.6-1. Note, the figure is intended to support City decision-making and should not be read as representing precise, site-specific conditions or all existing noise sensitive land uses.
Response 6.188
The commenter suggests updating Figure 4.6-2 to include Waller Park, change the water label to vernal pools, and clarify this is the noise contour map adopted by the County Airport Land Use Commission.
Waller Park is not located within the city limits of Santa Maria and therefore is not included. In response to this comment, Figure 4.6-2 has been revised to remove water features.
For additional clarification regarding the source of the airport noise contours shown on Figure 4.6-2, the Aviation discussion in Subsection 4.6.1.d, Existing Noise Environment, is revised as follows:
As shown in Figure 4.6-2, the airport 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contours adopted by the Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Commission extend primarily over areas of the plan area that are primarily agriculture or open space.
Response 6.189
The commenter suggests Figure 4.6-3 be revised to indicate the locations of sound walls and structures that mitigate noise impacts. The commenter suggests contours of 65 dBA and below should not be shown on the map as they do not apply to the area near US 101.
This comment pertains to a figure included within the 2045 General Plan Update. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision makers for their consideration. Refer 2-130
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
to Response 6.186 for a discussion of the methodology for determining traffic noise levels and noise contours. Also refer to Response 6.35 for a discussion of how noise contours are represented in figures in the General Plan and Draft EIR. While areas of noise contours 65 dBA and below do not apply to areas directly adjacent to U.S. 101, these noise contours are applicable to several roadways throughout Santa Maria. The noise contour map shows generalized noise conditions based on conservative assumptions and may not reflect all local features that may reduce noise levels, such as topography, vegetation, sound walls, or other physical barriers. In some locations, actual noise levels may be lower than those shown. The figure is intended to support City decision-making and should not be read as representing precise, site-specific conditions or all existing noise-reduction infrastructure. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.190
The commenter suggests revising Table 4.6-4 to include the City ordinance that allows exterior noise to be 75 dBA along major corridors. The commenter notes the City is encouraging residential development without perimeter sound walls which would result in higher noise levels for these developments.
Table 4.6-4 is specific to the exterior noise standards established within the current Noise Element of the Santa Maria General Plan. A discussion of noise standards established by the City’s Municipal Code is provided in Table 4.6-5. In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Subsection 4.6.2.c:
Municipal Code Section 5-5.09 requires the acquisition of a construction noise permit from the Noise Control Officer for exterior construction work conducted within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential zone only if such activities exceed the noise standards set forth in Municipal Code Sections 5-5.03 and 5-5.05. The permit would cover short-term or occasional, non-routine operations.
Municipal Code Section 12-7.14(a) allows outdoor living areas in R-2 and R-3 multifamily zones to exceed typical noise standards up to “Normally Unacceptable” levels (75 dB or more), provided residents receive a notice warning that the area regularly experiences elevated urban noise from sources such as traffic, trains, aircraft, industry, and general activity.
Municipal Code Section 12-49.09(c) prohibits vibration above the perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source for more than three minutes in any one hour of the day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and for more than 30 seconds in any one hour between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Response 6.191
The commenter suggests revising Table 4.6-5 to 65 dBA for daytime exterior noise and 75 dBA for noise along major corridors.
Table 4.6-5 accurately describes the ambient base noise levels identified in Section 5-5.05 of the City’s Municipal Code. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-131
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.192
The commenter suggests the Traffic Noise discussion on page 4.6-15 mention electric vehicles and associated traffic noise reduction.
While the State did implement mandates to phase out natural gas vehicle sales, these mandates were blocked by the United States Senate in May 2025. Given the uncertainty of legislation, it is speculative to assume that a ban on the sale of natural gas vehicles would occur. Furthermore, if a ban on the sale of natural gas vehicles occurs, it is likely that natural gas vehicles would continue to be used during a transitory period to electric vehicles. Due to the uncertainty regarding State legislation mandating electric vehicles, the Draft EIR does not consider a reduction in traffic noise occurring from a shift from natural gas vehicle to electric vehicle use, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.193
The commenter suggests the Traffic Noise discussion on page 4.6-15 include a discussion of fairgrounds, sports fields, and high school sporting events near residential areas.
Roadway vehicle noise impacts are evaluated based on average daily trip roadway volume for existing conditions and the amount of growth expected from future development facilitated by the plan, as well as data regarding speeds and number of lanes. The average daily trips and trip distribution data consider periods of time for high traffic and traffic around residential areas. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.194
The commenter suggests the Mobile Operational Noise discussion and exhibits in Impact NOI-1 are revised to reflect the concept that electric vehicles will occupy an increased number of cars on the roadway over time, thereby reducing traffic noise levels.
Refer to Response 6.192 for a discussion of electric vehicles and impacts to traffic noise levels. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.195
The commenter suggests revising the Impact NOI-1 discussion to account for electric vehicles occupying an increased proportion of vehicles on the roadway over time, thereby reducing traffic noise levels. The commenter suggest that Impact NOI-1 be revised to include analysis of the 8,000 new units in the annexation areas along with new schools, parks, commercial uses, etc.
Refer to Response 6.192 for a discussion regarding traffic noise associated with electric vehicles.
As discussed in Impact NOI-1, roadway segments located within the annexation area, shown in Figure 4.6-4, were not analyzed as they are not currently within Santa Maria city limits. As the 2045 General Plan does not include specific development proposals, the location of individual development in the annexation area, as well as the potential future traffic volumes of roadway segments located within the annexation area, is speculative. At the time an individual project is proposed within the annexation area, it would be required to undergo individual environmental 2-132
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
review to determine potential noise impacts of the individual project. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.196
The commenter suggests that Figure 4.6-4 be corrected to adjust contour lines where sound walls and buildings are located that reduce noise generated from traffic on US 101.
Refer to Responses 6.186 for a discussion of the methodology for determining traffic noise levels and noise contours. This comment pertains to a figure included within the 2045 General Plan Update. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision makers for their consideration. The noise contour map shows generalized noise conditions based on conservative assumptions and may not reflect all local features that may reduce noise levels, such as topography, vegetation, sound walls, or other physical barriers. In some locations, actual noise levels may be lower than those shown. The figure is intended to support City decision-making and should not be read as representing precise, site-specific conditions or all existing noise-reduction infrastructure. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.197
The commenter suggests revising Table 4.6-8 to account for electric vehicles occupying an increased proportion of vehicles on the roadway over time, thereby reducing traffic noise levels.
Refer to Response 6.192 for a discussion regarding traffic noise associated with electric vehicles. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.198
The commenter suggests Policy N-1.1 and Actions N-1.1.1, N-1.1.2, and N-1.1.3 included on page
4.6-30 be deleted due to their infeasibility.
In response to this comment, Action N-1.1.3 has been deleted from the 2045 General Plan Update and the Final EIR. Editorial edits to Policy N-1.1 and Actions 1.1.1. and N-1.1.2 in the General Plan have been carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR.
Response 6.199
The commenter suggests ensuring the City has the provisions of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 reviewed by construction contractors for individual developments.
As stated in Mitigation Measure NOI-1, during future individual developments, the City would include the listed noise reduction measures as conditions of approval, at which time the requirements for individual development will be reviewed by the construction contractor. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-133
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.200
The commenter suggests the Significance After Mitigation discussion within Impact NOI-1 is revised to reflect the concept that electric vehicles will occupy an increased number of cars on the roadway over time, thereby reducing traffic noise levels. The commenter asserts that the plan needs to address noise levels in 25 years rather than current noise levels.
Refer to Response 6.192 for a discussion regarding traffic noise associated with electric vehicles. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.201
The commenter suggests that the Cumulative Impacts discussion on pages 4.6-35 and 4.6-36 be revised to address noise reductions associated with the electrification of construction equipment and motor vehicles. The commenter states that traffic noise will be reduced compared to current conditions.
Refer to Response 6.192 for a discussion regarding traffic noise associated with electric vehicles. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.202
The commenter suggests that the City’s transportation demand model evaluated by GHD should be included as an appendix and peer reviewed by local traffic engineers. The commenter asks why GHD did not do a VMT analysis. The commenter suggests that a map showing the locations of infill projects presumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT are added to Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic.
The methodology for determining VMT impacts in the Draft EIR is discussed in Subsection 4.7.3.a, Methodology and Significance Thresholds. This methodology relied on the City of Santa Maria travel demand model which includes a current baseline scenario and a 2045 future scenario to forecast traffic conditions on major roadways in the city and the Santa Maria Valley. This trip-based model estimates residential VMT per household and VMT per employee based on home-based trip activity to and from residences and workplaces within Santa Maria and the annexation area.
A standalone transportation report for the VMT analysis was not prepared as part of the project; instead, Subsection 4.7.3.b, includes a summary of VMT model methodology, supporting data, and outputs. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.203
The commenter suggests revising the Roadway Network and Functional Classifications discussion on page 4.7-1 to include truck hauling routes and industrial hauling routes as uses for roadways in Santa Maria.
In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Subsection 4.7.1.a, Roadway Network and Functional Classifications, of the Final EIR:
Santa Maria is served by a system of streets and paths that enable connections in the city and to the regional transportation system. They are classified by their function with different characteristics and accommodations for modes of travel and access to adjacent land uses. The system supports multiple modes of travel and contains network elements that support 2-134
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel. In addition, roadways in Santa Maria provide routes for truck hauling and industrial uses hauling. The roadway classifications serve as the City’s policy guidance for the development of multi-modal streets and balance all network elements.
Response 6.204
The commenter suggests ensuring the accuracy of the description of Betteravia Road on page 4.7-2.
The description of Betteravia Road in Subsection 4.7.1.b is accurate. As described on page 16 of the Transportation and Mobility Existing Conditions Report prepared in December 2020 by the City of Santa Maria, the portion of Betteravia Road from U.S. 101 to SR 135 is designated in the National Highway System.
Response 6.205
The commenter suggests revising Table 4.7-1 to include road right-of-way widths, add a definition for public alleyways, add a definition for private roads and driveways for small lots. The commenter suggests including information on complete street standards as they relate to width and design of road segments, where complete street standards apply, and inclusion of a cross-section of a complete street.
Table 4.7-1, Current Circulation Element Roadway Classification in Subsection 4.7.1.c, Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roadways, is based on information from the City’s 2011 Circulation Element and includes the appropriate information to support the Traffic and Transportation environmental setting section of the Draft EIR. Additional definitions would not alter the conclusions or otherwise contribute substantively to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.206
The commenter suggests the Active Transportation Plan should be included as an appendix to the EIR.
The City’s Active Transportation Plan is available on the City’s website for review. The Draft EIR discusses the 2045 General Plan Update’s consistency with the Active Transportation Plan but does not rely on the Active Transportation Plan to reach any conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of the 2045 General Plan Update. Therefore, this plan is not included as an appendix to the EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.207
The commenter suggests revising Figure 4.14-1 to include the connection to U.S. 101 and Union Valley Parkway and the extension of Seaward Drive to U.S. 101.
Figure 4.14-1 is derived from the General Plan Environmental Existing Conditions Report, prepared by the City of Santa Maria in 2020. The General Plan Environmental Existing Conditions Report represents the most recent available information regarding roadway classifications in Santa Maria.
Referencing the adopted roadway classifications directly ensures consistency with official documents and avoids duplicating material that is already clearly defined and accessible in the city’s 2-135
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
transportation planning framework. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.208
The commenter suggests revising Figure 4.14-1 to revise the location of Bradley Road, include the road pattern for the Blosser Ranch Specific Plan, include the roads for Area 9 and Area 7 part of the Circulation Element, and identify all Measure A projects already funded.
Refer to Response 6.207 for a discussion of Figure 4.14-1 and its source material.
Response 6.209
The commenter suggests the Existing and Planned Bikeways discussion on page 4.7-5 include standards and widths for Class I-IV bikeways.
The City utilizes Caltrans standards for the widths of Class I trails, Class II bicycle lanes, and Class IV separated bikeways. Standards for Class III bicycle routes are incorporated into roadway width standards. In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to the Existing and Planned Bikeways discussion in Subsection 4.7.1.d, Pedestrian and Bicycle Network:
Class I Shared Use Paths. Class I shared use paths are completely separated rights-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, with crossflows by motorists minimized. Caltrans standards require a minimum width of eight feet for a one-way Class I bike path.
Class II Bicycle Lanes. Class II bicycle lanes provide a striped or buffered right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through-travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists. Caltrans standards generally require a minimum width of four feet for a Class II bicycle lane.
Class III Bicycle Routes. Class III bicycle routes are signed routes for bicyclists on low-speed, low-volume streets where lanes are shared with drivers. Caltrans standards for Class III bicycle routes are incorporated into roadway width requirements. Class IV Separated Bikeways. Class IV separated bikeways are on-street bicycle facilities with a physical barrier between the bicycle space and motor vehicle lanes, including bollards, curbs, or parking. Caltrans standards require a minimum width of five feet for a one-way Class IV separated bikeway.
Response 6.210
The commenter suggests revising the Santa Maria Regional Transit discussion on page 4.7-5 to include a table of ridership over the last 10-20 years to prove ridership has been increasing.
The Santa Maria Regional Transit discussion states that transit ridership is rapidly growing. In response to this comment, the text in Subsection 4.7.1.e, Transit, has been revised to include a source for this statement:
Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT). The City of Santa Maria operates SMRT’s local fixed route, regional bus service, and on-demand Microtransit and ADA paratransit bus services.
SMRT ridership demographics reflect a broad cross-section of the service area, including seniors, persons with disabilities, K-12 students, college students, working professionals, 2-136
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
tourists and riders who choose to use transit instead of driving. Transit ridership is rapidly growing and is expected to continue to grow over the years to come (City of Santa Maria 2025).
In addition, the following resource has been added to the Transportation references in Section 7.1, Bibliography:
Santa Maria, City of. 2020. General Plan Environmental Existing Conditions Report. Accessed June 2025.
______. 2025. SMRT Announces Route Adjustments in Response to Growing Ridership. https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/Home/Components/News/News/17738/ (accessed December 2025).
Response 6.211
The commenter suggests adding descriptions of the following transit services to the bulleted list on page 4.7-6: SMOOTH, Dial a Ride, and senior and medical transits provided by Marian and other medical services.
Medical transit provided by Marian relates to ambulance travel, which does not pertain to transit services such as buses and is therefore not discussed herein. In response to this comment, the following addition has been made in Subsection 4.7.1.e, Transit:
SMOOTH. SMOOTH maintains and operates various contracts with local groups in Santa Barbara County to provide transportation assistance with emphasis for passengers requiring medical, physical, and social assistance. SMOOTH provides Senior Dial-A-Ride services in Santa Maria.
Response 6.212
The commenter suggests the AB 32 and SB 375 discussion on page 4.7-6 be revised to specify 1990 emissions levels, 2020 emissions levels, and discuss whether statewide emissions targets were met in 2020.
Refer to Response 6.70 for a discussion regarding greenhouse gas emissions levels. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.213
The commenter states that the EIR needs to include the Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan and asks if this plan includes the annexation areas and suggests that the plan may need to be updated if not.
Diagrams of the existing street network, bikeway network, and pedestrian network are included in the Circulation Element of the 2045 General Plan Update. The Active Transportation Plan does not include the annexation areas, as the plan was adopted in January 2021, prior to preparation of the 2045 General Plan Update. Updating the Active Transportation Plan is outside of the scope of the Draft EIR and does not pertain to the environmental analysis of the 2045 General Plan Update. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-137
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.214
The commenter states maps from the Santa Maria Regional Transit Short Range Transit Plan Update should be included in the EIR and asks if this plan includes the annexation areas and suggests that the plan may need to be updated if not.
The Short Range Transit Plan Update does not include the annexation areas, as this plan was updated in 2021, prior to preparation of the 2045 General Plan Update. The Short Range Transit Plan Update includes figures regarding the transit system which are available for review in the Short Range Transit Plan Update. Updating the Short Range Transit Plan is outside of the scope of the Draft EIR and does not pertain to the environmental analysis of the 2045 General Plan Update. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.215
The commenter suggests the Methodology discussion on page 4.7-8 include a map and table showing existing and proposed traffic in Santa Maria in 2045 along with level of service. The commenter acknowledges EIRs do not have to include level of service information. The commenter expresses concern for the future circulation with increased traffic and decreased level of service. The commenter requests a map in the EIR is included which shows circulation for 2045-2050. The commenter states the EIR and 2045 General Plan Update are not consistent with each other in regard to how they discuss LOS.
Refer to Response 6.6 for a discussion of LOS analysis in the Draft EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15046.3, VMT has replaced LOS as the metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, a discussion of future traffic and LOS is neither necessary nor appropriate to include the Draft EIR. A discussion of LOS in the city can be found in the General Plan Circulation Element under the “Traffic Level of Service” heading. A map of the existing circulation system is provided in the General Plan as Figure 4.7-1, Current Circulation Element Roadway Functional Classification. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.216
The commenter suggests Impact TRA-1 needs to include the Travel Demand Model and requests additional information regarding future transportation studies, specifically whether GHD would be required to complete all future transportation studies.
The Santa Maria Travel Demand Model is a trip-based model used in the evaluation of VMT and is discussed in Impact TRA-2 of the Draft EIR. The model is available by request to the City of Santa Maria and does not require future transportation studies to only be carried out by GHD. Refer to Response 6.202 for a discussion of the Travel Demand Model and the methodology for determining VMT impacts in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.217
The commenter suggests deleting Policy CIR-1.2 from Impact TRA-1, as privately maintained streets and driveways would not be designed to meet complete street requirements. The commenter requests the Street Network, Bikeway Network, and Pedestrian Priority Improvement Network diagrams be included in the EIR.
2-138
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Policy CIR-1.2 was not deleted from the 2045 General Plan Update but editorial revisions to the policy have been incorporated into the 2045 General Plan Update and carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR. Diagrams of the street network, bikeway network, and pedestrian priority improvement network are included in the Circulation Element of the 2045 General Plan Update. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.218
The commenter suggests changes to the following polices and actions listed in Impact TRA-1:
Delete the reference to private streets in Policy CIR-1.3. Add a sentence in Action CIR-2.2.2 that states AB1600 traffic fees will be used as matching fund for future grants or funding programs.
Delete Policy CIR-6.1.
Delete the second bullet in Action CIR-6.4.3 as it is inconsistent with the Noise Element and EIR noise section. Delete the last two bullets as they are inconsistent with other policies. The last bullet is inconsistent with adopted Objective Design Standards. Revise Policy CIR-7.2 to state infill and annexations areas will prioritize mixed-use development.
Policy CIR-1.3 and Policy CIR-7.2 have been revised in the 2045 General Plan Update and changes have been carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. Action CIR-2.2.2, Policy CIR-6.1, and Action CIR-6.4.3 have not been revised in the 2045 General Plan Update. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no other changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.219
The commenter suggests the Bikeway Network, Pedestrian Priority Improvement Network diagrams, and Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan maps referenced in 2045 General Plan policies be included in the EIR.
Diagrams of the street network, bikeway network, and pedestrian priority improvement network are included in the Circulation Element of the 2045 General Plan Update. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.220
The commenter asks if mitigation to Impact TRA-1 needs to be included to address road improvements that will be needed as a result of traffic increases over the next 25 years.
Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include specific development plans, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of specific roadway improvements, as such 2-139
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.221
The commenter asks why new development projects have to reduce VMT to 24.2 and 32.8 percent based on Table 4.7-4. The commenter states this is infeasible and the law only requires a 17 percent reduction. The commenter asks what AB 130 would do for VMT requirements.
Table 4.7-4 does not show mandatory VMT reductions; rather, this table shows projected per-unit VMT decreases from residential and non-residential developments from future development only (i.e., development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update).
AB 130 would not change the threshold of significance for VMT impacts pursuant to CEQA. Rather, AB 130 provides a means of mitigating VMT impacts from future projects through contribution to a state Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.222
The commenter suggests noting on page 4.7-15 that Policy CIR-7.1 and Action CIR-7.1.1 will not pertain to most infill housing projects, which the commenter states would be exempt from environmental review. The commenter suggests revising Policy CIR-7.2 consistent with the comment on 6.218.
In response to this comment, Policy CIR-7.1 has been revised in the 2045 General Plan Update and changes have been carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR.
Response 6.223
The commenter states that page 4.7-14 is inconsistent with the statement on 4.7-15 which states the City would be inconsistent with CARB standards.
Impact TRA-2 states that future development alone would meet CARB’s VMT reduction target, but concludes that future development combined with existing development (i.e., combined Future conditions forecast) would not meet the CARB reduction target. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.224
The commenter asks for clarification if VMT is considered a significant and unavoidable impact, if every future non-residential project would require an EIR.
As described in Impact TRA-2, potential future VMT impacts from individual developments in Santa Maria would be evaluated based on local VMT thresholds established by the City. Future non- residential projects would not by default be required to prepare an EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-140
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.225
The commenter suggests removing the reference to private streets in Policy CIR-1.3 on page 4.7-16.
This comment pertains to policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.226
The commenter states they have the same comments as above on Policy CIR-1.4 and Actions CIR-
1.4.1 and CIR-1.4.2 on page 4.7-17.
This comment pertains to policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.227
The commenter suggests Policy CIR-1.9 should be separated into two policies covering level of service and bicyclists separately. The commenter states there is no need for deficiency plans as most intersections will be significantly impacted in the future.
In response to this comment, revisions to Policy CRI-1.9, CIR-1.10, and CIR-1.11 have been made in the 2045 General Plan Update to separate LOS and bicycle level of stress and changes have been carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR.
Response 6.228
The commenter suggests that infill development will result in significant traffic impacts that need to be addressed in the EIR, including a map that shows future roadways and intersections which will exceed level of service standards.
Refer to Response 6.6 for a discussion of LOS analysis in the Draft EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15046.3, VMT has replaced LOS as the metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, LOS is not evaluated as a potential environmental impact in the Draft EIR. A map of the existing circulation system is also provided in the General Plan as Figure 4.7- 1, Current Circulation Element Roadway Functional Classification. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.229
The commenter asks if the second paragraph of the Cumulative Impacts discussion on page 4.7-18 means the City will accept level of service deficiencies throughout Santa Maria at full buildout. The 2-141
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
commenter asks for clarification on the third paragraph of the Cumulative Impacts discussion related to exemptions from CEQA for housing projects.
The paragraph referenced by the commenter explains that the cumulative impacts analysis considers all development anticipated under the General Plan and confirms that such development would be required to comply with local regulations and policies, including those in the Circulation Element. These policies govern how the circulation system, including roads, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, will function as growth occurs. The conclusion is that cumulative projects would not conflict with applicable plans or policies, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. The Draft EIR does not establish or modify LOS standards.
Refer to Response 6.8 for a discussion of future individual projects requiring separate environmental review. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.230
The commenter suggests adding to the Water Supply and Demand discussion on page 4.8-1 that the adjudication agreement included return flows from the wastewater treatment plant for percolation ponds. The commenter also suggests adding information that the City has been successful in reducing water consumption per capita and water use in agricultural operations.
Per capita water consumption is discussed in Impact UTIL-2 of the Draft EIR. Specifics regarding water types that are allocated to the City as result of the Santa Maria Groundwater Adjudication are not included in the evaluation of per capita water consumption as they do not have an influence on the environmental conclusions related to water supply in Impact UTIL-2. Impact UTIL-2 provides an analysis of the total amount of projected water supply and demand in the city. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.231
The commenter suggests reformatting Table 4.8-1 to put the table on one full page. The commenter asks if the table and Annexation Study Technical Memorandum prepared by WSC qualify as a Water Supply Assessment per state law.
The comment pertaining to reformatting Table 4.8-1 focuses on editorial edits that do not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response 6.9 for a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis.
The Annexation Study Technical Memorandum prepared by WSC would not qualify as a Water Supply Assessment. A Water Supply Assessment would be required for a project-level development meeting any the definitions of project provided in California Water Code Section 10912(a). No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.232
The commenter suggests the Sewer Collection and Wastewater Treatment discussion on page 4.8-3 should include the current flow to the wastewater treatment plant, and an estimate of the capacity of the plant at full buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update. The commenter asks if there will be a need for upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant or development of a new plant, and if there will need to be upgrades to wastewater pipelines.
2-142
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Future wastewater generation is discussed in Impact UTIL-1 of the Draft EIR. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include specific development plans, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of specific sewer pipeline upgrades, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.233
The commenter suggests the Stormwater Facilities discussion on page 4.8-4 should include information on the A Street basin and the North Blosser basins. The commenter provides information on the Blosser Channel and Blosser Basin. The commenter states that information should be added on the Green Canyon watershed and stormwater improvements constructed through the southern portions of Santa Maria. The commenter provides information on these improvements.
Subsection 4.8.1.c, Stormwater Facilities is based on information from the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2009 Sewer System Master Plan, 2005 Storm Water Management Plan, 2020 Infrastructure Existing Conditions Report, and city input as these are readily available resources, and provide sufficient baseline data to support Subsection 4.8.1.c, Stormwater Facilities. Additional information regarding stormwater projects intended to reduce stormwater runoff would not further the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.234
The commenter suggests that the Solid Waste discussion on page 4.8-5 should include information on the Los Flores Landfill, information on what occurs when the existing landfill is closed, a discussion of food organic waste, hazardous waste collection, and justification for the use of Cold Canyon Landfill.
Subsection 4.8.1.d, Solid Waste, states that the Santa Maria Regional Landfill is expected to remain operational through 2034, and that after operation of the Santa Maria Regional Landfill ends, the City may divert waste to nearby facilities such as the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has sufficient capacity and is anticipated to operate through 2040. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for the Los Flores landfill mentioned by the commenter, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.
Organic waste reduction requirements are described in the California Senate Bill 1383 discussion in Subsection 4.8.2.b, State Regulations, of the Draft EIR. Hazardous waste disposal is described in the Chapter 8-11 discussion in Subsection 4.8.2.c, Local Regulations, of the Draft EIR and in Subsection
4.9.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-143
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.235
The commenter suggests revising the Water discussion in Impact UTIL-1 to state that the City has installed a water line from water tanks east of Santa Maria to Panther Drive that will serve the annexation area.
Subsection 4.8.3.b, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, discusses existing infrastructure supporting the annexation area, and concludes that the existing infrastructure may not be adequate to support the level of development that would be facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. As development in the annexation area occurs, the City would be required to review existing infrastructure and determine whether additional improvements are necessary to ensure adequate service. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.236
The commenter suggests revising the Wastewater discussion in Impact UTIL-1 to clarify the calculations of wastewater generation and the locations of wastewater pipelines that would convey effluent from the east to the existing plant and the sizing of these pipelines.
As stated in Impact UTIL-1, the 2045 General Plan would facilitate development which, at full buildout, would result in a wastewater generation of 11.4 million gallons per day based on a generation factor of 68 gallons per day as stated in the City’s 2020 UWMP. The wastewater treatment plant has a capacity of 13.5 million gallons per day.
Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of specific wastewater treatment pipeline improvements, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.237
The commenter suggests revising the Stormwater discussion in Impact UTIL-1 to include information on how stormwater conveyance will be handled on the east side of the freeway. The commenter suggests regional drainage cannot be deferred to future projects.
Drainage patterns are discussed in the Impact HYD-3 discussion of the Draft EIR. As described therein, runoff would be regulated under the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small General Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Phase II MS4 Permit) and the Industrial General Permit. Individual developments that create or replace greater than or equal to 2,500 square feet of impervious surface would be required to implement BMPs and submit a Stormwater Control Plan listing applicable BMPs to the City for review and approval.
Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include specific development plans, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of drainage changes of such development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-144
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.238
The commenter suggests revising the goals and policies listed on page 4.8-16 in accordance with previous comments.
This comment pertains to policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Response 6.239
The commenter suggests that Impact UTIL-1 should include information regarding overall regional infill drainage and drainage in the annexation area. The commenter asks how drainage from the annexation area will be conveyed to the river.
Refer to Response 6.237 for a discussion regarding stormwater conveyance. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.240
The commenter suggests that Impact UTIL-2 should include information from the 2024 Annual Report of the Santa Maria Valley Basin Management Plan, specifically page 38-39 of that plan, which includes a discussion of projected water use by 2040 of 18,700 acre-feet The 2024 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition uses the 2020 UWMP and describes projected 2045 water use in the city as approximately 18,700 acre-feet. Pages 38-39 of the 2024 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition refers specifically to intra-basin water transfers related to the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, and discusses supply and demand of the basin. The Draft EIR discusses city water demand and supply from all applicable water sources. As such, relevant and applicable information from the 2024 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition has been incorporated into the Draft EIR.
The estimated 2045 water use of approximately 18,700 acre-feet is shown in Table 4.8-1 in the rows showing 2045 demand totals. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.241
The commenter states that the 2024 Annual Report of the Santa Maria Valley Basin Management Plan includes a discussion of projected water use for Santa Maria by 2040.
Refer to Response 6.240 for a discussion of the Santa Maria Valley Basin Management Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.242
The commenter asks for additional information on the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, including its adoption date and how often it is updated. 2-145
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan provides guidance to prepare and respond to water shortages in Santa Maria. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan is included as Appendix H of the City’s 2020 UWMP. The City first adopted its 2005 Water Shortage Contingency Plan in 2007 and made subsequent updates in 2011 and 2021.
This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR or recommend additional information or analysis be added to the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.243
The commenter states that a 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use, referenced on page 4.8-19, would result in water use to be 85 gallons per day per capita.
The City relies on a water demand factor of 118 gallons per capita per day, as stated in the City’s 2020 UWMP, as a basis for projecting water demand in Santa Maria. This demand factor accounts for existing water reduction measures, including those included in the California Green Building Standards Code. The 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use that the commenter refers to has been enforced by the California Green Building Standards Code starting in 2016. As such, residential indoor water use would continue to be reduced by 20 percent and would not further reduce residential water use to the commenter’s estimated 85 gallons per capita per day. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.244
The commenter states the last paragraph of Impact UTIL-2 should reference the 2024 Basin Management Plan and note the total water use for Santa Maria is estimated at 18,700 acre-feet.
Refer to Response 6.240 for a discussion of the Santa Maria Valley Basin Management Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.245
The commenter states that Impact UTIL-3 should clarify if the use of Cold Canyon landfill is temporary and if Los Flores landfill would be built.
As described in Impact UTIL-3, the Santa Maria Regional Landfill is expected to remain operational through 2034. After operation of the Santa Maria Regional Landfill ends, the City may divert waste to nearby facilities such as the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has sufficient capacity and is anticipated to operate through 2040. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for the Los Flores landfill mentioned by the commenter, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-146
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.246
The commenter states that the Cumulative Impacts discussion on page 4.8-21 needs to describe existing water use and projected water use at 2045 total buildout. The commenter asks if the City has determined what water lines need to be upgraded to serve buildout.
Existing water use is estimated in Table 4.8-1 in Subsection 4.8.1.a, Water Supply and Demand, of the Draft EIR. Projected water use at full buildout on 2045 is provided in Impact UTIL-2.
Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans, the Draft EIR does not specify water lines that may need upgrades to serve future development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.247
The commenter states that the Cumulative Impacts discussion on page 4.8-21 needs to account for up to 15 million gallons per day of wastewater effluent generation at full buildout. The commenter asks for clarification of how wastewater demand was calculated and which pipelines would be needed to serve development east of the freeway.
As stated in Impact UTIL-1, the 2045 General Plan would facilitate development which, at full buildout, would result in 11.4 million gallons of wastewater per day based on a generation factor of 68 gallons per day in the City’s 2020 UWMP. The wastewater treatment plant has a capacity of 13.5 million gallons per day.
Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of specific wastewater treatment pipeline improvements, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.248
The commenter states that the Cumulative Impacts discussion on page 4.8-22 needs to clarify where future solid waste will be hauled and if the Los Flores landfill will be constructed.
Refer to Response 6.245 for a discussion of future solid waste. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.249
The commenter suggests revising the Aesthetics discussion on page 4.9-1 as there is no view of the Santa Maria River except from U.S. 101 bridge or levee trail north of Santa Maria. The commenter suggests adding the names of ridges, rolling hills, and mountains to the east, and noting the locations of the Solomon Hills and Casmalia Hills.
2-147
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
As shown in Figure 2-2, Santa Maria city limits contain portions of land abutting the Santa Maria River where the river and its foothills are visible. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
The comment pertaining to adding names of landscape features focuses on editorial edits that do not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR nor would it change the analysis in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response 6.9 for a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis.
Response 6.250
The commenter suggests revising the second paragraph of the Aesthetics discussion on page 4.9-1 to include information on Objective Design Standards.
In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Subsection 4.9.1, Aesthetics:
The City has regulations for exterior lighting for commercial development, mixed-use development, Objective Design Standards for residential development, as well as specific standards for parking lots, signs, and for development within Airport Safety Zones (Chapters 12- 33, 12-49, 12-32, 12-34, 12-21 and 12-24 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Response 6.251
The commenter suggests adding Objective Design Standards to the third paragraph of the Aesthetics discussion on page 4.9-1.
Refer to Response 6.251 for a discussion of Objective Design Standards. As described therein, a reference to Objective Design Standards has been added to Subsection 4.9.1, Aesthetics, of the Final EIR.
Response 6.252
The commenter suggests deleting the first paragraph on page 4.9-2 as it is repetitive of previous information in the Aesthetics discussion on page 4.9-1.
This comment focuses on editorial edits that do not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR nor would it change the analysis in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response 6.9 for a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis.
Response 6.253
The commenter suggests revisions to Policy REC-8.1 on page 4.9-2 as there is no publicly owned and designated open space in Santa Maria.
This comment pertains to policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
2-148
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.254
The commenter suggests adding Executive Order N-79-20 described in the Energy discussion on page
4.9-2 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas chapter of the EIR.
Executive Order N-79-20 directs California to end the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger vehicles by 2035 and transition the state’s transportation sector toward zero-emission electric vehicles. While the State did implement mandates to phase out natural gas vehicle sales, these mandates were blocked by the United States Senate in May 2025. Given the uncertainty of legislation, it is speculative to assume that a ban on the sale of natural gas vehicles would occur.
Furthermore, if a ban on the sale of natural gas vehicles occurs, it is likely that natural gas vehicles would continue to be used during a transitory period to electric vehicles. Due to the uncertainty regarding State legislation mandating electric vehicles, the Draft EIR does not consider a reduction in energy use occurring from a shift from natural gas vehicle use to electric vehicle use, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.255
The commenter suggests that the Operational Impacts discussion on page 4.9-3 should list all of the counties that 3CE serves.
In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to the Operational Impacts discussion in Subsection 4.9.2, Energy:
The City of Santa Maria is currently enrolled in the Central Coast Community Energy Program (3CE) which strives to source clean and renewable electricity at responsible rates for customers along the central coast of California within the 3CE service area which includes the counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara.
Response 6.256
The commenter asks for clarification on Action S-1.1.4 on Page 4.9-5 related to the number of buildings constructed with unreinforced masonry.
This comment addresses policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.257
The commenter suggests deleting Action S-1.2.1 as this is already in the Building Code and zoning ordinance.
This comment addresses policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not 2-149
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.258
The commenter suggests deleting Action S-1.3.1 as this is already required by the building code.
This comment addresses policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.259
The commenter suggests revising the Landslides discussion on Page 4.9-7 to clarify the escarpment is not subject to landscapes in Santa Maria or the annexation area.
As stated in Subsection 4.9.3, Geology and Soils, there is no proposed development or land use changes that would occur in the area of Santa Maria that contains the escarpment. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.260
The commenter suggests revising the first paragraph of Page 4.9-8 to indicate areas of expansive soil are known to be unlikely within city limits.
Given that the majority of the City of Santa Maria is considered unlikely to contain expansive soils, as shown in Figure S-3 of the Draft 2045 General Plan, the following language has been added to Subsection 4.9.3, Geology and Soils:
Areas of expansive soils are known to exist in city limits; however, the majority of Santa Maria is considered unlikely to contain expansive soils (Safety Element of the 2045 Santa Maria General Plan Figure SE-3).
Response 6.261
The commenter suggests revising the Paleontological Resources discussion on Page 4.9-8 to state there have been few paleontological resources found in Santa Maria, and the Santa Maria Valley has been historically flooded and the Orcutt area consists of historic sand dunes.
The commenter’s suggested additions do not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.262
The commenter states there is no mention of Allan Hancock College and new school sites in Santa Maria in the Schools discussion on Page 4.9-11.
2-150
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
As discussed in Response 6.8, the Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15168 for long-range planning documents and does not require site-specific planning or design details. The 2045 General Plan Update does not include specific proposals for the development of school facilities, including Allan Hancock College, and it is not possible to know project specific details at this time regarding potential improvements at school facilities or future new school facilities. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for specific developments projects, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of future potential development at a project level of detail, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time.
In response to the commenter’s statement regarding Allan Hancock College, the following revision has been made to the Schools discussion in Subsection 4.9.8, Public Services and Recreation:
There are 23 schools within city limits, including elementary, junior high and high schools, and Allan Hancock College.
Response 6.263
The commenter suggests including a map of existing and new school sites from US 101 and truck routes in the Schools discussion on Page 4.9-11. The commenter asks if schools need to be 0.25-mile from truck routes.
As discussed in Response 6.8, the Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15168 for long-range planning documents and does not require site-specific planning or design details. The proposed project does not include specific proposals for the development of school facilities and it is not possible to know project specific details at this time regarding potential improvements at school facilities or future new school facilities. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for specific developments projects, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of future potential development at a project level of detail, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.264
The commenter suggests revising the Hazardous Materials Sites discussion on Page 4.9-11 to include a map that locates the 90 active hazardous materials sites in Santa Maria. The commenter asks if this number includes active and historic oil wells.
Subsection 4.9.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, describes the approximately 90 active hazardous materials sites identified on the DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker databases.
These do not include all active and historic wells in Santa Maria as not all well sites have posed a potential hazard.
The Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15168 for long- range planning documents and does not include specific development proposals as part of the proposed project. Proximity to hazardous materials sites would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of City review for individual development projects. Accordingly, a map of hazardous materials sites throughout Santa Maria is not included in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-151
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.265
The commenter suggests the policies and actions on Page 4.9-12 should remove references to the City Petroleum Engineer and should refer to new state law regarding setback for new oil development. The commenter suggests deleting either Action S-4.1.3 or S-4.1.6 due to repetitive information.
Action S-4.1.6 has been revised in the 2045 General Plan Update and changes have been carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR. This comment addresses policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.266
The commenter asks clarification on Action S-4.2.5 on Page 4.9-11 regarding if the City issues permits for railroad operations or if railroad operations are exempt from City permits.
Railroad operations and facilities permitting falls under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission; the City does not issue permits for railroad operations. In response to this comment, Action S-4.2.5 has been deleted from the 2045 General Plan Update and changes have been carried over into the Final EIR, as appropriate. The revisions incorporated into the Final EIR do not otherwise change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Final EIR.
Response 6.267
The commenter suggests a page break between two action items is needed on Page 4.9-15.
This comment focuses on editorial edits that do not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, nor would it change the analysis in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response 6.9 for a discussion of comments, recommendations, and requests that are editorial in nature and do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or alter the environmental impact analysis.
Response 6.268
The commenter states there is no land in Santa Maria zoned for agriculture. The commenter suggests revising the first paragraph of the Land Use and Planning discussion on Page 4.9-18 to clarify the number of infill units and units in the annexation area.
The commenter correctly notes that there is no land in Santa Maria zoned for agriculture. Specifics on the proposed 2045 General Plan Update buildout is discussed in Section 2.6.5, Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.269
The commenter suggests revising the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Land Use and Planning Discussion on Page 4.9-18 to clarify that all neighborhoods can potentially have infill units. 2-152
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
In response to this comment, the following change has been made to the Land Use and Planning Discussion in Subsection 4.9.5, Land Use and Planning:
By c using new development away from established neighborhoods and ensuring compatibility between new development and existing facilities through thoughtful land use planning, the policies help prevent community division and reduce the potential for significant environmental impacts.
Response 6.270
The commenter suggests deleting Action LU-1.1.2 on Page 4.9-19 as the Objective Design Standards have been adopted.
This comment addresses policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.271
The commenter suggests revisions to Policies LU-1.2, LU-1.3, and LU-1.5 on Page 4.9-19. The commenter asks information on the current jobs-housing balance in Santa Maria.
This comment primarily addresses policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.272
The commenter suggests including a mention of mining in Santa Maria for gravel and sand in the Mineral Resources discussion on Pages 4.9-20 and 4.9-21.
As described in Subsection 4.9.6, Mineral Resources, there are no mines or mineral extraction operations in the city and none are proposed. No gravel or sand mining exists in the city and is not required to be discussed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.273
The commenter suggests revising the Population and Housing discussion on Page 4.9-22 to clarify there will be two additional RHNA cycles through the horizon of the 2045 General Plan Update.
In response this comment, the following revision has been made to Subsection 4.9.7, Population and Housing:
The City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element indicates 5,418 residential units must be built by 2031 to satisfy the state required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The plan would facilitate development that could help the City reach its housing needs goal. In addition, subsequent 2-153
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Housing Element revisions would be made throughout the horizon of the 2045 General Plan Update in accordance with state law. These plans would facilitate development that could help the City reach its housing needs goal.
Response 6.274
The commenter suggests revising the Fire Protection discussion on Page 4.9-23 to provide information on the number of existing fire stations and firefighters in Santa Maria and the future needs of the fire department.
The following revision has been made to Subsection 4.9.8, Public Services and Recreation:
Fire protection services in Santa Maria are provided by the Santa Maria Fire Department (SMFD). SMFD provides a wide range of programs, which include fire suppression, all risk emergency services, public education programs, fire prevention, and life safety measures. SMFD also administers a hazardous materials business plan program in cooperation with Santa Barbara County. There are six fire stations in the city (City of Santa Maria 2025a).
SMFD operates five stations that serve the entire community and Fire Station No. 6 only serves the Santa Maria Public Airport (City of Santa Maria n.d.). There are currently five frontline fire engines and one ladder truck in service for the Santa Maria Fire Department. In addition, the department has an aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle at the airport station, an urban search and rescue vehicle, three reserve engines, and a Type-III brush engine. For purposes of responding to structure fires, there are four engines and a truck available, leaving one engine free to cover the city. The fire department is currently budgeted for a total of 63 suppression personnel, with a ratio of 0.59 firefighters per 1,000 residents. Daily minimum staffing is 20 department personnel, including the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Specialist and a Battalion Chief. The average response time of the Santa Maria Fire Department in 2019 was 4:06 minutes for all calls, and 5:32 minutes when considering only calls for structure fires (City of Santa Maria 2020a).
Development facilitated by the plan would be served by the Santa Maria Fire Department, which provides fire protection and emergency medical services throughout the city. As future buildout occurs, the City would evaluate fire service operations and deployment to ensure adequate coverage.
Response 6.275
The commenter suggests revising the Police Protection discussion on Page 4.9-23 to provide information on the number of existing police stations and police officers in Santa Maria and the future needs of the police department.
The following revision has been made to Subsection 4.9.8, Public Services and Recreation:
Law enforcement services are provided by the City of Santa Maria Police Department (SMPD).
There is one police station located at 1111 West Betteravia Road and approximately 700 police department personnel (City of Santa Maria 2024). Professional police services include maintaining civil order, preventive patrol, investigations, traffic control and enforcement, criminalistics, crime prevention, drug enforcement, and abuse prevention. The department houses the public safety dispatch center for police and fire, which receives all emergency 9-1-1 and non-emergency calls for services (City of Santa Maria 2020a). The Santa Maria Police 2-154
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Department Communications Center handles over 170,000 incoming calls for service every year (about 465 per day). There are 63,000 emergency 9-1-1 calls per year (about 172 per day).
Development facilitated by the plan would increase population and activity levels in Santa Maria, potentially leading to higher demand for police protection services. The Santa Maria Police Department would provide law enforcement citywide, with development required to undergo security review during the plan check process and to pay police mitigation fees under SMMC Chapter 8-15.
Response 6.276
The commenter suggests revising the Schools discussion on Pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24 to include the number of new schools needed for full buildout, including the locations of such facilities, and any plans for Allan Hancock College.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for new school facilities, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.277
The commenter suggests revising the Parks and Recreation Facilities discussion on Pages 4.9-24 and
4.9-25 as there is not enough land in Santa Maria to meet parkland standards. The commenter suggests adding detail on where additional parkland will come from. The commenter suggests adding other calculations to the footnote on Page 4.9-24 to describe the parkland needed to meet parkland standards at full buildout. The commenter suggests adding information on parkland at Los Flores and states that having future residential developers pay for parkland is infeasible.
The discussion in Subsection 4.9.8, Public Facilities and Recreation, pertaining to parkland acknowledges that the city’s existing and future park service ratio with implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update would be below its service goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and additional parkland would be required.
Subsection 4.9.8, Public Facilities and Recreation, discusses potential environmental impacts related to park services at a programmatic level. Project-specific details, including acquiring and development of parkland, are required to be addressed through future planning and subsequent environmental review. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for parkland at Los Flores, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such development. Furthermore, Los Flores Park is not a City park as it is not located within city limits, and it is not readily accessible to city residents. The Draft EIR does not evaluate the feasibility of existing Municipal Code requirements. Santa Maria Municipal Code Section Chapter 8- 15 currently requires developers to pay impact fees that would promote the maintenance and expansion of public parks. These impact fees would assist in maintaining and expanding parkland in Santa Maria. As such, the Draft EIR in accordance with California Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), deems the payment of impact fees to be full and complete mitigation. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-155
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.278
The commenter suggests revising the Other Public Facilities discussion on Page 4.9-25 to note that libraries are experiencing a reduction in use, note that all new school sites have library resources, and add information on where new library buildings would be located If needed.
Libraries are discussed in Subsection 4.9.8, Public Facilities and Recreation, of the Draft EIR, which concludes that impacts related to libraries would be less than significant. The commenter correctly notes that schools have library resources; however, library resources in schools are typically limited to use by students and not available to all members of the public. As a result, these library resources are not considered in Subsection 4.9.8, Public Facilities and Recreation, of the Draft EIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Because the 2045 General Plan Update does not include future development plans for a new library facility, the Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such development, as such an evaluation would be speculative at this time. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.279
The commenter suggests revising the Wildfire discussion on Pages 4.9-25 and 4.9-26 to note the majority of Santa Maria is surrounded by agricultural production that limits wildfire. The commenter notes the new CalFire maps indicate there is potential for a fire hazard in the Santa Maria Riverbed and Solomon Hills area.
The discussion in Subsection 4.9.9, Wildfire, pertaining to fire risks states that Santa Maria is characterized by limited fire hazards, and describes the fire hazard severity zones identified by CalFire. The locations referenced by the commenter are designated as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, but are not classified as a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.280
The commenter suggests revising the Wildfire discussion on Page 4.9-26 to note that the Santa Maria Police Department serves as the aerial firefighting base for CalFire.
In response to this comment, the following change has been made to Subsection 4.9.8, Public Facilities and Recreation, rather than the Subsection 4.9.9, Wildfire:
Development facilitated by the plan would increase population and activity levels in Santa Maria, potentially leading to higher demand for police protection services. The Santa Maria Police Department would provide law enforcement citywide, with development required to undergo security review during the plan check process and to pay police mitigation fees under SMMC Chapter 8-15. The Santa Maria Police Department also serves as an aerial firefighting base for CalFire.
2-156
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.281
The commenter suggests revising the Population and Economic Growth discussion on Page 5-1 to clarify the current job housing balance and explain how the 2045 General Plan Update is going to meet a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.2.
This comment relates to the projected jobs included in the 2045 General Plan Update and does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Balancing jobs and housing is a policy objective handled through the 2045 General Plan Update and Housing Element under state planning law and RHNA requirements. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 explicitly states that economic or social effects are not treated as significant environmental impacts unless they lead to a physical change in the environment. As such, Chapter 5, Other CEQA Required Discussions, Section 5.1.1 of the Draft EIR evaluates whether the project could induce growth or create environmental impacts associated with housing or employment changes. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.282
The commenter suggests revising Policy LU-1.1 to clarify the definition of a complete community.
This comment relates to policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.283
The commenter asks why there is not an action item for future planning in annexation areas.
Policy LU-2.3 in the General Plan addresses future planning in annexation areas. Policy LU-2.3 states “Future specific plans. Require specific plans or master plans in support of annexation in the Planned Annexation Area that are consistent with the following objectives:
Prioritize new employment uses near existing institutions, such as educational or research and development (R&D) near Marian Regional Medical Center and Allaen Hancock College, and industrial or commercial uses adjacent to US-101 and along East Main to provide convenient access to regional transportation.
Provide a diversity of higher density housing types for rental and ownership at a range of price points, to minimize land area expansion and conversion of agricultural lands. Design complete neighborhoods where residents have convenient walking and biking access to public facilities, services, and retail.
Buffer schools, parks, and homes from infrastructure, major roadways, the Santa Maria regional landfill, industrial land uses, and other land uses that may produce odor or noise or negatively impact air quality.
Support expansion of the Marian Regional Medical Center and other supportive medical offices in new development in close proximity to the existing Medical Center. 2-157
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Support higher education, including expansions of Allen Hancock College and other public, private, and post-secondary schools.
Provide 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, per the City’s park service standard, and plan for new public and recreational facilities.
Develop a safe, connected network of sidewalks and trails that provides ample connections to destinations
This comment relates to the actions included in the 2045 General Plan Update itself and does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.284
The commenter suggests revisions to Policy LU-1.2 in accordance with previous comments on this policy.
Action LU-9.1.1 in the Land Use Element states the following: “ As a part of the LAFCO Sphere of Influence boundary change and annexation process, the City will establish and maintain a stable Urban Growth Boundary to provide certainty for both urban development and agricultural operations.” This comment is regarding policy language included in the 2045 General Plan Update that does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.285
The commenter suggests Page 5-3 should include a reference to the No Urban Growth agreement on areas outside of the Sphere of Influence and annexation area.
Areas located outside of the City’s proposed Sphere of Influence and annexation area are not currently in the jurisdiction of the City and could not be developed by the City until the boundary changes are approved by LAFCO. Accordingly, development located outside of the City’s jurisdiction is not applicable to this Draft EIR. However, in anticipation of future Sphere of Influence boundary changes and annexations, Action LU-9.1.1 in the Land Use Element states the following: “ As a part of the LAFCO Sphere of Influence boundary change and annexation process, the City will establish and maintain a stable Urban Growth Boundary to provide certainty for both urban development and agricultural operations.” No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.286
The commenter states Section 5.2, Irreversible Environmental Effects, should be revised to state that no known archeological sites have been identified in the city over the last 35 years and they are not expected to be found north of Betteravia so there would not be impacts north of Betteravia. The 2-158
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
commenter contends that even south of Betteravia, it is unlikely to find resources since there have been agricultural activities on the undeveloped land.
Refer to Responses 6.160 through 6.163 for a discussion of cultural resources and how they are evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Response 6.287
The commenter states the Agricultural Identity objective needs to be revised or it will be used against the City by LAFCO for the proposed annexation areas.
Refer to Response 6.10 for a discussion of project objectives and how they were developed for the 2045 General Plan Update.
Response 6.288
The commenter states that the words “urban footprint” should be changed to “city boundary”. The commenter also requests that the second and third sentences in Section 6.2.2.b., Biological Resources, are deleted or revised because the mitigation measures are standard requirements and would apply today for current development projects except housing projects that are exempt from environmental review.
Subsection 6.2.2.c., Biological Resources, has been updated as follows:
Less growth and development outside of the existing urban footprint city boundary under the No Project Alternative would reduce the potential for habitat disturbance, leading to reduced impacts to biological resources.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 (a) through BIO-1(k) are not standard City requirements. These mitigation measures go beyond existing City requirements contained in the Santa Maria Municipal Code and current General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.289
The commenter states that the Cultural Resource analyses in the Alternatives chapter should be revised to reflect their previous comments about no cultural resources being located north of Betteravia, so no more surveys will be required.
Refer to Responses 6.160 through 6.163 for a discussion of cultural resources and how they are evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Response 6.290
The commenter requests that changes to Sections 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 are made based on comments provided previously.
This comment does not provide a specific concern regarding the contents or adequacy of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 provides guidance on the preparation of response to comments and indicates that while lead agencies must evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on a Draft EIR they need only respond to comments related to significant environmental issues. Therefore, no response to this comment or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 2-159
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.291
The commenter requests that the description of Alternative 2 (Infill Only Alternative) be updated to state that it will have 16,000 units and commercial office development within the existing city limits.
The commenter states that Alternative 2 is fatally flawed because there is no room in the city for 200 acres of new schools and hundreds of acres of new parks, and that the only way this could be accomplished is to allow many high-rise buildings and multi-level buildings on existing school sites.
The commenter states this would result in a negative impact on aesthetics.
Subsection 6.3.1, Description, has been updated as follows:
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. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the Infill Only Alternative would result in the addition of approximately 16,000 new residential units and up to 23,750 new jobs associated with new commercial development within city limits.
The Draft EIR discusses potential environmental impacts related to Alternative 2 at a programmatic level in Subsection 6.3.2, Impact Analysis. The Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis of the proposed plan and plan alternatives, consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15168 for long-range planning documents. As Alternative 2 does not include proposals for specific projects, it is not possible to know project-specific details such as the locations and heights of new development, and the analysis in the Draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts that would result from implementation of Alternative 2 at a broad level. Project-specific details will be addressed through future planning and project-level environmental review.
Under CEQA, the alternatives analysis is intended to compare how reasonable alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified for the proposed plan, consistent with the rule of reason (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). Environmental topics, such as aesthetics, that were screened out of full analysis in the Draft EIR because they would not result in significant impacts are not required to be analyzed for each alternative, unless an alternative would itself result in a new significant impact in one of those topics. As described in Section 6.3.1, Description, Alternative 2 would adopt the 2045 General Plan Update, including all goals and policies, as it is described in Section 2, Project Description. Alternative 2 does not include any additional revised policies, amendments to the existing zoning and land use regulations, or other changes to City ordinances that would permit increased building heights in comparison to the proposed plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance standards protect the visual character of the city by regulating the size, mass, and design of development projects. Consistent with the proposed plan, new development that would be facilitated by Alternative 2 would be subject to these standards, thereby preserving the city’s visual character and ensuring compatibility with surrounding development and impacts would be similar to the proposed plan. As such, no other revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. Nonetheless, the commenter’s opinions regarding Alternative 2 will be shared with City decision makers.
Response 6.292
The commenter states Alternative 2 (Infill Only Alternative) would retain the No Urban Growth Boundary in its current location. The commenter requests that the last sentence of Section 6.3.2a., Agricultural Resources, be deleted because most urban agriculture has urban land use designations 2-160
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
on these lands for future development and these residentially designated lands have already been included in the Housing Element.
As stated in Subsection 6.3.2, Agricultural Resources, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program still designates areas in the city as Important Farmland; however, the conversion of these areas and associated land use changes has been previously evaluated in earlier environmental documents which are listed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources.
The Draft EIR acknowledges that conversion of farmland could occur under Alternative 2; however, these impacts were previously addressed by previous EIRs, including the Spere of Influence Expansion EIR (SCH #90010930), Area 9 Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008071018), Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental EIR (SCH #1994107909), and Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement EIR (SCH #2015011029).
Though already identified as urban land use designations in City of Santa Maria planning documents, the Department of Conservation Important Farmland data has yet to be updated and information regarding previous environmental review has been provided to disclose all available information for the conversion of agricultural land in the city limits. As this comment does not identify a new or substantially different environmental impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.293
The commenter states that all other sections need to be revised per previous comments made in this comment letter.
This comment does not provide a specific concern regarding the contents or adequacy of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 provides guidance on the preparation of response to comments and indicates that while lead agencies must evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on a Draft EIR they need only respond to comments related to significant environmental issues. Therefore, no response to this comment or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.294
The commenter requests a map for Alternative 3 (Greater Annexation Alternative) that shows how many acres of land would be annexed. The commenter states that Alternative 3 might be the best because it would give the city additional land for buildout of the General Plan as well as for future school sites and parks.
Under CEQA, the alternatives analysis is intended to compare how reasonable alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified for the proposed plan, consistent with the rule of reason (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), the Draft EIR need only include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.
Alternative 3, as described in Chapter 6, Alternatives, Section 6.4.1, includes a description of Alternative 3 which indicates this alternative would include the annexation of a larger area east of the city limits. Project specific details regarding acreage, exact location, and projects are not available for evaluation of this alternative as there are no specific project proposals included in Alternative 3. However, the information available is sufficient to complete a broad evaluation, analysis, and comparison of this alternative to the proposed project. The commenter’s opinion regarding the merits of Alternative 3 will be shared with City decisionmakers. 2-161
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.295
The commenter states that Sections 6-10-13 need to be revised per previous discussions.
This comment does not provide a specific concern regarding the contents or adequacy of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 provides guidance on the preparation of response to comments and indicates that while lead agencies must evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on a Draft EIR they need only respond to comments related to significant environmental issues. Therefore, no response to this comment or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
Response 6.296
The commenter states the discussion of Alternative 2 (Infill Only Alternative) does not adequately discuss items that prove this alternative to be fatally flawed including the location of new school sites, the location of new parks, aesthetic impacts associated with high rise buildings and two-to- three-story school buildings on existing school campuses, and water and sewer upgrades required to serve 16,000 additional units. The commenter states Alternative 2 has only one net benefit impact and that is on agricultural resources.
Refer to Response 6.291 for a discussion of revisions to Chapter 6, Alternatives. A discussion of the feasibility of Alternative 2 is included in Section 6.5, Environmentally Superior Alternative, of the EIR, which states, “Although the Infill Only Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative, this alternative would not fulfill the primary objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update, including the provision of housing quality and various housing choices or improving opportunities for connected growth. Further, the Infill Only Alternative would not enhance new and existing neighborhoods such that each neighborhood would be a Complete Neighborhood or provide innovative housing and may result in the City failing to meeting its RHNA obligations in accordance with State law as it would significantly reduce the affordable housing options and limit new housing to infill only and redevelopment.” The Draft EIR discusses potential environmental impacts related to Alternative 2 at a programmatic level in Subsection 6.3.2, Impact Analysis. The Draft EIR provides a program-level analysis of the proposed plan and plan alternatives, consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15168 for long-range planning documents. As Alternative 2 does not include proposals for specific projects, it is not possible to know project specific details, including locations, heights, or localized infrastructure upgrades at this time, and the analysis in the Draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts that would result from implementation of Alternative 2 at a broad level.
Project-specific details will be addressed through future planning and project-level environmental review. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6.297
The commenter suggests that Table 6-1 should be formatted to fit on one page to make it easier to read.
The formatting of Table 6-1 has been updated so that the table fits on one page. This correction does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. 2-162
September 28, 2025
Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria
[email protected]
Re: Draft General Plan and Draft EIR
Dear Dana,
On behalf of Santa Barbara County Action Network, we congratulate you and the entire General Plan team on completing a thorough Draft Plan and Draft EIR. As you know, SBCAN has urged that the plan be based on the infill alternative and remains disappointed that the plan is based on the expectation of annexing nearly 1,000 acres of prime agricultural land. Given the Local Agency Formation Commission’s history of not approving such annexations over the last couple of decades, this is a highly speculative expectation. Fortunately, the draft plan will provide sound guidance for the future even if the annexations don’t happen.
Unfortunately, a lot of planning effort is going into something that shouldn’t—and likely—won’t happen.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report identifies the impact of land use changes in the proposed annexation area on agricultural resources as significant and unavoidable, noting that no feasible mitigation is available. The fact is that these impacts are avoidable. The City’s Alternatives Analysis (Feb. 2023) found that each of the Land Use Alternatives would be able to meet the needs of the community. In fact, the Infill Alternative was found to be able to provide the most capacity for housing. The City, therefore, must not find that the impact of land use changes in the proposed annexation area on agricultural resources is significant and unavoidable. The impact would be significant, but not unavoidable.
On March 3, 2025, SBCAN submitted comments on the Policy Frameworks. Some of our comments were supportive of the content and others suggested actions that may be too detailed for a general plan. Some of our other comments that don’t appear to be addressed, but are at a level of detail that aligns with the rest of the document, are listed below. For reference we’re including the Policy Framework identifiers and please reference our March 3 letter for more details.
HEJ 1.1: Trees planted as buffers should be drought tolerant. Explore sources of methane pollution and adopt policy actions to reduce these.
HEJ 1.3: Adopt policies to cause truck drivers to go slower for lower emissions and better safety.
HEJ 1.6: Identify remaining idle oil wells and adopt actions to remediate those and previously abandoned wells that may not be properly abandoned.
HEJ 2.2: Adopt policies to require installation of clean energy technology in all new homes.
CIR 1.1: Implement traffic calming to slow vehicles down, crosswalks with bulb- outs and other measures to reduce speed.
LETTER 7
7.1 7.2
2-163
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Lawanda Lyons-Pruitt
Co-President North
Dick Flacks
Co-President South
Gale McNeeley
Secretary
Jonathan Abboud
Treasurer
Janet Blevins
Alhan Diaz-Correa
Carla Frisk
Robert Gibson
Jaime Tinoco
Stanley Tzankov
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Rich Appelbaum
Spencer Brandt
Pati Cantu
Gerry DeWitt
Geoff Green
Lee Heller
Christina Hernandez
Elizabeth Farnum
David Landecker
Gail Marshall
Harvey Molotch
Gail Osherenko
Karen Shapiro
Das Williams
Hilda Zacarias
Terri Zuniga
TEAM
Jeanne Sparks
Co-Executive Director
Ken Hough
Co-Executive Director
Nancy Avoce
Assistant Director
Joyce Howerton
Consultant
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
ACTION NETWORK
P.O. Box6174
Santa Maria, CA 93456
info@sbcan .org
www.sbcan .org
Facebook.com/SBCANorg
805.563 .0463
Santa Barbara County Action Network, Page 2 of 2
We also urge you, as we said at a Planning Commission study session, to restructure drainage channels to make them more like the creeks they had been at one time and to be a source of beauty and recreation.
There is a need for more parks, open space, hiking trails, off-street bikeways and generally safer streets. We urge you to provide for those in the general plan update.
Finally, in the time since the City sought comments on the Policy Frameworks, several legislative bills aimed at streamlining approval of housing development across California have passed into law and more may be in our future.
In light of that, SBCAN urges the City to strongly consider health, environment, and safety impacts of all proposed developments in Santa Maria.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Ken Hough, Co-Executive Director Jeanne Sparks, Co-Executive Director cc: SBCAN Board of Directors
7.3 7.4
2-164
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 7
COMMENTER: Ken Hough and Jeanne Sparks, Co-Executive Directors of Santa Barbara County Action Network
DATE: September 28, 2025
Response 7.1
The commenter commends the City and General Plan team for producing a thorough Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. The commenter reiterates their longstanding support for the Infill Only Alternative and expresses concern that the Draft General Plan is based on the assumption of annexing nearly 1,000 acres of prime agricultural land. The commenter states that such annexations have not been approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission in recent decades. While the commenter emphasizes that significant planning resources are being directed toward a scenario that is unlikely to be realized. The commenter also challenges the Draft EIR’s conclusion that impacts to agricultural resources from land use changes in the proposed annexation area are “significant and unavoidable,” arguing that these impacts are avoidable under the Land Use Alternatives.
The commenter’s preference for the Infill Only Alternative will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration. While the commenter expresses concern about the likelihood of the proposed annexation being approved, the Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, page 1-5, recognizes that annexation is a discretionary process subject to review and approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The 2045 General Plan Update establishes policies and land use designations intended to guide future growth within existing city limits and provide a framework for potential growth scenarios, including annexation, if approved by LAFCO. The Draft EIR evaluates impacts for both existing city limits and the proposed annexation area, and the 2045 General Plan Update is structured to function as a citywide policy document regardless of whether annexation is ultimately approved. Growth projections in the plan address annexation, and many policies, such as those for infill development, mixed-use corridors, housing diversity, and infrastructure planning, apply broadly and would continue to guide development even if annexation does not occur.
The commenter suggests that the impact of land use changes in the proposed annexation area on agricultural resources should not be considered unavoidable, citing the feasibility of meeting housing needs under the Infill Only Alternative. The commenter is correct that impacts to agricultural resources would be less than significant under the Infill Only Alternative. However, the detailed impact analysis in Chapter 4, Impact Analysis, evaluates the potential impacts of the 2045 General Plan Update as proposed, which includes the planned annexation areas. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), which requires that the EIR evaluate the significant environmental effects of a proposed project.
As discussed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, on pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-15 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update as proposed would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. The commenter suggests this determination is inaccurate, claiming the City could avoid significant impacts to agricultural lands by adopting one of the alternatives described the City’s Alternatives Analysis prepared in 2023:
https://www.imaginesantamaria.com/_files/ugd/e3bef4_d80cf7b24f8e4aa580244179b5b883d1.pd f. Specifically, the commenter states the Infill Only Alternative as a feasible option that would meet community needs while avoiding annexation of agricultural lands, thereby reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
2-165
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
The City acknowledges that some alternatives, including the Infill Only Alternative, would result in reduced or avoided impacts to agricultural lands. However, as explained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, potential impacts from alternatives are evaluated separately from the proposed project to explore feasible options that could reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. The project alternatives, discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, are not used to modify or reinterpret the impact conclusions of the proposed project.
As described in Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must evaluate potential significant impacts of the project as proposed, which is presented in Chapter 4, Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. This ensures that the environmental impacts of the actual project under consideration are clearly disclosed to decision-makers and the public. Therefore, while alternatives may demonstrate the potential to reduce impacts, they do not alter the significance determinations made for the proposed project Chapter 4, Impact Analysis.
In summary, the Draft EIR appropriately identifies impacts to agricultural resources based on the proposed project. The potential for reduced impacts under alternatives is addressed in Chapter 6, Alternatives. Therefore, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), the Draft EIR concludes that the conversion of agricultural land under the proposed General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, and that no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Response 7.2
The commenter mentions they previously submitted comments on the Policy Frameworks document.
The commenter reiterates several suggestions from their previously submitted comments that align with the level of detail in the 2045 General Plan Update and requests their consideration.
This comment pertains to the policies within the 2045 General Plan Update and does not raise a question or concern regarding the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR. As this comment does not identify a new significant impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Comments related to policy content will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 7.3
The commenter encourages the City to restructure existing drainage channels to resemble natural creeks, enhancing their aesthetic and recreational value. Additionally, the commenter urges the 2045 General Plan Update to include provisions for more parks, open space, hiking trails, off-street bikeways, and safer streets to improve community livability and access to outdoor amenities.
The General Plan Update includes goals and policies that support enhancement of open space, parks, and multimodal infrastructure. These topics are addressed in the Draft EIR in several resource sections:
Subsection 4.9.1, Aesthetics, evaluates potential impacts related to scenic quality and visual character. The Draft EIR concludes that development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would not substantially degrade public views or scenic resources and would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to existing Zoning Ordinance standards for size, mass, design, and lighting. While the comment suggests redesigning drainage channels to resemble natural creeks for aesthetic and recreational purposes, that specific topic is not part of 2-166
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
the proposed project and was not evaluated in the Draft EIR. This suggestion will be forwarded to decision-makers for consideration during the planning process. Subsection 4.9.8, Recreation, assesses the adequacy of existing parkland and recreational facilities. The Draft EIR determined that the 2045 General Plan Update would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities beyond what is planned, and impacts would be less than significant.
Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, evaluates impacts to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and supports improvements consistent with the 2020 City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan:
https://www.cityofsantamaria.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27722/6375104711934300
00. The Draft EIR concludes that the 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with applicable transportation plans and would result in less than significant impacts.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 7.4
The commenter states that since the City solicited input on the Policy Frameworks, several new state laws have been enacted to streamline housing development approvals. In light of these changes, the commenter urges the City to carefully consider the health, environmental, and safety impacts of all proposed developments in Santa Maria.
The Draft EIR evaluates impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, hazards, noise exposure, and transportation across multiple sections:
Section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a assesses emissions from construction and operation of future development, including impacts to sensitive receptors and consistency with regional air quality plans.
Section 4.3, Biological Resources, evaluates impacts to sensitive species and habitats, and provides mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts to biological resources. Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, addresses drainage, flood hazards, and water quality protection within the plan area.
Section 4.6, Noise, evaluates construction and operational noise impacts, including vibration and noise exposure near sensitive land uses.
Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, analyzes vehicle miles traveled, safety, and emergency access within the plan area.
Subsection 4.9.3, Geology and Soils, reviews potential impacts related to seismic hazards, liquefaction, expansive soils, and other geotechnical conditions that could affect development under the 2045 General Plan Update.
Subsection 4.9.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, reviews potential risks from the use and transport of hazardous materials, existing hazards, and emergency response.
The analysis within the Draft EIR considers the health, environmental, and safety impacts associated with implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. The Draft EIR is a programmatic environmental document prepared under CEQA to evaluate the broad impacts of implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. The 2045 General Plan Update does not include specific development projects. Future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would undergo separate environmental review as determined by the City at the time a project application is submitted. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-167
500 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1000, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
OFFICE: 916-446-7979 FAX: 916-446-8199
SOMACHLAW.COM
September 29, 2025
Via Electronic Mail
Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria
Community Development Department, Planning Division
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
[email protected]
Comments on the Draft Santa MariRe: a 2045 General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Dana Eady:
On behalf of the Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties (Grower-Shipper), we submit comments to the City of Santa Maria (City) on the Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update (General Plan) and its Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2025020584).
Grower-Shipper represents 150 growers, shippers, farm labor contractors, and supporting agribusinesses on matters related to agriculture within Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, including within and around Santa Maria. Grower-Shipper members grow important crops that are consumed locally, such as broccoli, strawberries, lettuce, vegetable transplants, flowers, tree fruit, and wine grapes, and statewide. Grower-Shipper’s mission is to maintain a vibrant agricultural industry in the region by assisting members to address challenges and capitalize on strengths and opportunities.
Grower-Shipper thanks the City for the opportunity to again comment on the formulation of its General Plan. Grower-Shipper submitted comments on the General Plan Policy Framework on February 28, 2025, which are attached hereto and fully incorporated herein. Grower-Shipper appreciates the City’s consideration of its initial comments and any revisions the City made to its proposed policies for the General Plan that are responsive to concerns expressed in Grower-Shipper’s comments.
However, Grower-Shipper remains concerned about several proposed policies and actions included in the General Plan, specifically ones that would result in locating sensitive LETTER 8
8.1 2-168
PROFE AL CO TION
AT YS AT
Dana Eady
Re: Comments on Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update and Draft EIR September 29, 2025
uses and/or disadvantaged communities (DACs) near existing critical agricultural operations or that improperly identify the areas underlying those operations as DACs. Grower-Shipper is also concerned with potential regulatory conflicts and impediments to agriculture operations and transportation that appear likely with certain proposed policies and actions. Grower- Shipper is further concerned that the 2045 General Plan Update Draft EIR may not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
1 regarding its treatment of Health and
Environmental Justice (EJ) Element and policies and actions. These concerns and others are discussed in more detail below.
A. The General Plan Improperly Identifies Several Unpopulated Areas as DACs The General Plan EJ Element relies primarily on entire census tracts to determine DACs, which creates certain inaccuracies. The western portions of Census tracts 20.11, 24.09, and 24.10 are agricultural and industrial areas that are largely unpopulated and primarily include facilities and other operations rather than communities. Like census tract 25.03, which was excluded for a similar reason,2 these tracts should be excluded as DACs from the General Plan EJ Element. At a minimum, the City should take a more granular approach and only identify the specific block groups, if any, within those larger tracts that accurately qualify as DACs—as it appears to do with the “5 block groups that are distri buted across the city.”3 The City is under no obligation to define DACs using entire census tracts. Senate Bill (SB) 1000 (2016), codified in relevant part in Government Code section 65302(h), identifies DACs as an unspecified “area.”4 Similarly, section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code—referenced in SB 1000—mandates the identification of DACs based only on “areas.”5 The General Plan’s imprecise determination of DACs can and likely will result in new and increased restrictions on existing operations that support agricultural uses, and on the agricultural uses themselves, throughout the City and region. These operations and uses may even be completely halted by future policies, actions, and decisions intended to protect DACs that do not exist in these unpopulated areas. Obstructing established agricultural operations and uses in this manner controverts the California Right to Farm Act6 and the Santa Barbara County Right-to-Farm Ordinance,7 which prohibits a changed condition in a locality to result in agricultural operations and uses becoming nuisances.
Classifying large agricultural and industrial areas that are relatively unpopulated as DACs is unsupported and will result in significant adverse consequences for Grower-Shipper members. Restrictions placed upon these operations and uses can broadly affect local
1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines). 2 Draft 2045 General Plan EJ Element, p. 4, fn. 2.
3 Id., p. 3.
4 Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(4)(a).
5 Health and Safety Code, § 39711, subd. (a).
6 Cal. Civ. Code, § 3482.5, subd. (a).
7 Santa Barbara County Code, § 3-23, subd. (d).
8.1 8.2
2-169
Dana Eady
Re: Comments on Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update and Draft EIR September 29, 2025
agricultural resources, resulting in adverse impacts to the local food supply and economy.
This cannot be the City’s desired result. Agricultural working lands and essential supporting land uses must not be identified as DACs. Accordingly, Grower-Shipper opposes the identification of census tracts 20.11, 24.09, and 24.10 as DACs and requests that the City reevaluate these areas for the next iteration of the General Plan EJ Element.
B. Several General Plan Policies and Actions Could Result in Adverse Consequences to Local Agricultural Operations and Resources and the Economy or May Conflict with or Impede Existing Statutes and Regulations Several General Plan proposed policies and actions, discussed below, could result in unintended adverse consequences for the City’s agricultural operations and resources and the local and regional economy and should be reconsidered.
Action COS-5.2.4, requiring an update to the Municipal Code to establish a minimum buffer between agricultural uses and development from sensitive land uses, directly threatens the City’s agricultural resources and operations. While buffers could be one tool with limited utility, the most effective way to protect agricultural resources is to refrain from inducing sensitive or residential uses into or next to agricultural areas, both within and adjacent to the City, and to protect the vitality of essential agricultural activities and support facilities, rather than hindering them. Policy HEJ-1.1, discussed more below, likewise threatens agricultural resources and operations by imposing new restrictions on existing operations instead of protecting these resources in a manner that benefits the City and the region. Further, as discussed, introducing policies and actions that would restrict and potentially eliminate existing agricultural resources controverts the California Agricultural Protection Act and the Santa Barbara County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, as well as the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
8 and, without sufficient analysis in the EIR, CEQA (discussed below).
Actions COS-4.1.1, COS-4.1.3, and COS-5.2.3, Policy S-3.2, Policy HEJ-1.4 and its actions, and Policy HEJ-1.8 introduce air, pesticide, and water quantity and quality controls that may conflict with or impede existing statutory and regulatory requirements for resources and hazards that are already highly regulated by laws and agencies like the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the Federal Clean Water Act, the Regional and State Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the County Agricultural Commissioner, to name only a few. Additional regulations of agricultural air emissions, pesticides, or water quantity and quality by the City are inappropriate and must be removed.
Actions CIR-4.2.2 and LU-4.1.2, Policy N-2.2 and its actions, and Policy HEJ-1.2 require transportation controls and related actions that will adversely affect the transportation of agricultural products. East-west movement of perishable and time-sensitive agricultural
8 Cal. Gov. Code, § 51200 et. seq.
8.2 8.3
2-170
Dana Eady
Re: Comments on Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update and Draft EIR September 29, 2025
produce, vehicles, and equipment is essential to agriculture and the jobs and businesses it supports, both within and beyond the City. Transportation corridors must remain open and efficient. The City must provide adequate transportation options and must not allow its General Plan to restrict routes and timely movement of agricultural produce, equipment, and support vehicles.
Policies ECON-2.8, LU-2.1, and LU-2.3 (among others), and several General Plan maps, identify and discuss annexation of agricultural lands east of U.S. Highway 101 that would dramatically increase adverse impacts to agricultural resources, both from the immediate conversation of agricultural land and through additional regulatory requirements and conflicts from farming near unrelated urban uses. Grower-Shipper therefore opposes a subset of these annexations and notes that the resulting potentially significant impacts were not accurately identified, much less analyzed or mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, in the Draft EIR in violation of CEQA (discussed below). Grower-Shipper does not necessarily oppose the annexation of a limited portion of land north of Main Street, and the block immediately east of Marian Regional Medical Center, despite that these areas contain prime farmlands of exceptional quality, in recognition of the need to balance multiple priorities.
However, the proposed Specific Plans for these annexed areas must include policies and requirements to minimize conflicts between the new urban uses and existing agricultural operations, in large part by locating sensitive uses—especially schools and childcare facilities—and active recreation and residen tial uses as far as possible from existing agricultural operations.
Importantly, the specificity and detail in the General Plan’s proposed EJ policies and actions is not required. SB 1000 requires all general plans include an EJ Element and that the Element identify policies and objectives that, generally, reduce health risks to DACs by certain means such as a reduction in pollution exposure, and promote civic engagement and prioritize programs addressing the needs of DACs. It does not, however, require any level of specificity for these EJ policies or actions. Moreover, the Attorney General SB 1000 Best Practices
9 is not controlling authority.10 At most, it may be considered persuasive, like a formal Attorney General legal opinion.11 Notwithstanding, SB 1000 Best Practices does not claim that SB 1000 mandates specific general plan EJ policies or actions and acknowledges that “an effective environmental justice policy in one jurisdiction may not be relevant or effective in another… ” and that “[a]nyone reviewing this document to determine SB 1000
9 Available at https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000.
10 See, e.g., Thorning v. Hollister School District (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1604. 11 Although, courts regularly find Attorney General opinions to not be persuasive (see, e.g., People ex rel.
Foundation for Taypayer & Consumer Rights v. Duque (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 259, 268; Almond Alliance of California v. Fish & Game Com. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 337, 358; Sukut Construction, Inc. v. Rimrock CA LLC (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 817, 830; Rideout Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. County of Yuba (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 214, 227), and, in any event, best practices are not classified as a formal opinion. The Attorney General labels them informally as “colleague letters.”
8.3 2-171
Dana Eady
Re: Comments on Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update and Draft EIR September 29, 2025
compliance responsibilities should consult their own attorney for legal advice.” 12 The
Attorney General’s suggestions and examples for policies and actions use flexible language, like “may” and could,” indicating an agency may exercise its discretion, where appropriate, to develop a policy to address a particular concern.13 At base, SB 1000 Best Practices does not give directions, it makes suggestions.
Thus, the City is not obligated to include the level of detail that it currently includes in some of its proposed EJ policies and actions. For example, proposed Policy HEJ-1.1 could and should be revised as follows:
Policy HEJ-1.1: Protect against industrial Reduce potential exposure to pollution.
Prevent industrial and commercial facilities from exposing Avoid siting sensitive land uses (e.g., schools, playgrounds, housing, hospitals, senior centers, and daycare centers), and/or land uses with a reasonable likelihood of accommodating DACs 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 near agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses.
This policy revision would better address the fundamental need for good land use planning and compatibility to proactively prevent land use conflicts and resulting issues. It also better comports with the generalized directive in SB 1000 to “[i]dentify 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…” 14 and would avoid
conflicts with the California Agricultural Protection Act and the Santa Barbara County Right- to-Farm Ordinance.
Revising or eliminating the above-discussed proposed General Plan policies and actions would help to avoid unintended and significant adverse consequences to agricultural resources and operations and the economy and would not result in additional, increased, or disproportionate impacts to natural resources or DACs. The General Plan is in draft form, and its policies and actions are only proposed at this time. The City has the discretion to review and process feedback from stakeholders like Grower-Shipper and its members and make changes that will avoid the significant impacts discussed in this letter. Accordingly, Grower- Shipper requests that the City make these changes, and any others it may deem problematic for the City’s agricultural community and local and regional economy.
12 Attorney General SB 1000 Best Practices, pp. 2, 13.
13 Id., pp. 13-14.
14 Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1)(A).
8.3 2-172
Dana Eady
Re: Comments on Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update and Draft EIR September 29, 2025
C. The General Plan Draft EIR Fails to Sufficiently Analyze All General Plan Policies and Actions, in Violation of CEQA
The Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Draft EIR omits necessary analysis of several General Plan policies and actions. Critically, the Draft EIR appears to omit any analysis whatsoever of the General Plan EJ Element and its proposed EJ policies and actions. This oversight is problematic because several proposed EJ policies and actions, such as those promoting new infrastructure, would result in changes to the physical environment that could cause direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect significant adverse environmental impacts requiring analysis commensurate with their level of detail, 15 including in a cumulative
scenario,16 and potentially requiring mitigation pursuant to CEQA.17 The Draft EIR also does not analyze the inherent conflict between some of the DACs identified in the EJ Element and existing zoning for agriculture and resulting impacts, and fails to identify any feasible mitigation measures that may reduce these impacts, in violation of CEQA.18 The Draft EIR further fails to adequately analyze the effects of the General Plan’s annexation policies on agricultural resources. The EIR summarizes previous environmental review of annexation areas located west of Highway 101 but does not analyze impacts to areas located east of the highway, despite that these areas contain important and prime farmland that will be threatened by urban encroachment resulting from annexation.
These omissions lessen the EIR’s value as an informational document for decisionmakers and the public.
19 “The EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed project” and “to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.”
20 Grower-Shipper represents the local agricultural citizenry that is apprehensive about the environmental effects of the General Plan on agricultural uses and
15 A program EIR (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15168), such as a general plan EIR, may analyze impacts at a less granular level than a project-specific EIR but still must address all reasonably foreseeable effects. (See fn. 17, post.) “The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15146.) Here, where the EJ policies and actions have a high degree of specificity, the EIR must analyze impacts resulting from those policies and actions at a corresponding degree.
16 See CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.
17 See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1, 21065.3, 21068; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15121, 15126.2, 15126.4, 15358, [an EIR must analyze a project’s direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect significant environmental effects related to a physical change and describe feasible measures that could minimize these effects]; see also, e.g., Save the El Dorado Canal v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 239, 263.) 18 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126, 15126.2, 15126.4. 19 See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21005, 21061; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15003, subd. (c), 15121; Sierra Club v.
County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 520-21, internal citation omitted [omission of required discussion can result in EIR not “serv[ing] its purpose as an informational document;” “[t]he relevant informational document here is the EIR, and the EIR must communicate [to] ‘the public and the government officials deciding on the project’”].
20 CEQA Guidelines, § 15003, subds. (c),(d), citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 C. 3d 68 and People v.
County of Kern, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830.
8.4 2-173
Dana Eady
Re: Comments on Draft Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update and Draft EIR September 29, 2025
accordingly requests that the City prepare the analysis required under CEQA to adequately inform decisionmakers and the public about these impacts and mitigate them to the extent feasible.
Thank you for your consideration of this comment letter. Grower-Shipper retains the right to submit further comments and evidence, if warranted, up to the final public hearing on the matter.
21 We are happy to answer any questions the City may have. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Also, please add me the list of parties that receive all notices regarding the EIR and General Plan, including the Notice of Determination, when it is posted.
Sincerely,
Kelley M. Taber
Attachment
21 See, e.g., Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124.Cal.App.4th 1184, 1200 [CEQA comments considered up to final project hearing].
8.4 2-174
ATTACHMENT
2-175
GROWER-SHIPPER ASSOCIATION OF SANTA BARBARA AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES PO Box 309, Santa Maria, CA 93456 • 534 E Chapel St, Santa Maria, CA 93454 • (805) 343-2215 February 28, 2025
Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria Planning Division Manager
[email protected]
Re: City of Santa Maria General Plan Policy Framework
Dear Ms. Eady,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the General Plan Policy Framework and to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee. In addition to the comments provided verbally at the most recent TAC meeting, we would like to highlight a few key points. We look forward to continuing to work with the City to further refine these policies as the foundational document for the forthcoming General Plan, and implementing the General Plan for many years to come.
In general, we suggest the documents are further refined to prevent potentially conflicting policy directives. We are also concerned with expansions of requirements that present feasibility limitations in the future (ex: wildlife corridors, ecological buffers, wilding). Several of the policies are beyond the scope and expertise of the City of Santa Maria and would be better left to the implementation and enforcement mechanisms already in place (ex: intent of ecological buffers addressed through CEQA, pesticide regulation within the regulatory authority of the County Ag Commissioner and CA DPR, and water quality regulatory authority of the Water Board, etc.).
Finally, we are concerned with the addition of development requirements and exactions, as well as regulatory policies, that go above and beyond the ample body of other existing and future regulatory mandates. If it moves forward in the Draft General Plan, this expansion will affect the feasibility and affordability of developing new and affordable housing, as well as business and employment opportunities (ex: Circulation, Community Benefits Agreements, Land Use, Recreation, Safety, etc.).
The following are some additional comments about the specific draft Goals, Policies, and Actions.
Conservation and Open Space Policy Framework
1. Reduce mowing. We support the regular maintenance of City lands to reduce invasive pests and diseases, but are concerned that a prescriptive reduction of mowing could also create problems with potential hosts and IPM practices,. One such example is the Impatiens Necrotic Spotted Virus (INSV):
weed management plays an important role in breaking the host cycle and disease management, which can have potentially devastating impacts to neighboring agricultural areas.
2. Agricultural Preservation. We support the preservation of agricultural lands. We are unclear on what is meant by 2.1.2 and the type of easements intended. Other options for technical assistance and education with more specialized expertise in agriculture are available than what would be expected from the City.
3. Sustainable Agriculture. We share the interest in promoting sustainable agriculture. However, we would not expect the City to develop technical expertise, as there are other, more specialized resources available.
2-176
ASSOCIATION
of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Coun ties
Grower-Shipper Assoc of SB & SLO Counties Page 2 of 4
4. Water Resources, Action 4.1. Water is a very important resources for many beneficial uses in and around the City. This is also a very highly regulated space, both for municipal and agricultural uses, especially through the State and Regional Water Boards, not to mention the Basin Adjudication and SGMA. Many of the goals are already being addressed without the need for new programs or policy actions. We discourage the creation of additional layers of regulation or potential policy inconsistencies, as the requirements through other regulatory mechanisms only continue to increase.
5. 5.3 Agricultural air pollutant emissions. Agriculture continues to advance in its practices, but many of the items identified in this section are beyond the scope of the City and should not be included in the General Plan. Farming practices are best addressed through specific technical expertise and limited by economic and technical feasibility. Action 5.3.3 is already being implemented by the County Agricultural Commissioner, with additional restrictions from CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), CalEPA, and USEPA. We generally support Action 5.3.4, although its goals are likely best achieved through thoughtful land use planning, especially of prospective annexations and siting of schools. It is also worth noting that vegetative buffers, if immediately adjacent to agricultural operations, can create challenges related to food safety, pests, and diseases.
6. 6.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Policies should balance what technology and practices are reasonably feasible, cost-effective, and available, and also consider potential impacts to jobs, businesses, and residents.
7. 8.2: Community environmental stewardship. We believe that 8.2.4, 8.2.6, and 8.2.7 are duplicative of existing efforts and/or are better served by other sectors, rather than creating a new City mandate.
Noise Policy Framework
1. N2.2 Industrial and agricultural traffic. We oppose policies that limit routes and times of essential movement of goods, equipment, and people. Many agricultural operations are time-sensitive, and delays in cooling and access to equipment, and especially for fresh produce, are irreversible. We do support policies that facilitate smooth east-west corridors, and opportunities for improved movement could also benefit the noise being generated from multiple users.
Circulation Policy Framework
1. CIR2.2 Transportation Planning. We support the City’s participation in multi-jurisdictional planning and funding efforts.
2. CIR 7.2. We support the City’s infill efforts to meet urban needs while reducing pressure to annex agricultural lands.
3. CIR-8.1: Parking. As expressed in our comments on the Housing Element, we are concerned with parking policies that could be barriers to the construction or redevelopment of affordable housing, especially in situations where group employee transportation, such as CalVans, is available.
Economic Development Policy Framework
1. Policy ED-2.1: Business-friendly regulation. We strongly support the City’s dedication to an environment that support business and jobs. We are concerned that some of the policies introduced elsewhere in the frameworks could inadvertently conflict with this important action. We further suggest that efficiency is prioritized for all businesses, including agriculture and supporting businesses, not just ag tech.
2. Policy ED-2.3: Infill development. As stated elsewhere, we support infill development as a means to achieve multiple goals.
2-177
Grower-Shipper Assoc of SB & SLO Counties Page 3 of 4
Health and Environmental Justice Policy Framework
1. We will restate our objections to the use and narrative surrounding CalEnviroScreen 4.0, especially surrounding pesticides. First, pesticide use is not the same as exposure. Next, the tool uses census tracts, which include agricultural production areas outside of the City limits, which is misleading for the purposes of the City of Santa Maria. Additionally, in many cases, a closer look at the underlying data show that the City’s “population characteristics scores” are almost always higher than the “pollution burden score.” We urge you to reach out to the County Agricultural Commissioner to better understand the difference between use and exposure, as well as the robust and continually evolving regulatory mechanisms and monitoring already in place.
2. We object to the inaccuracies, selective references, and implications made regarding H-2A housing in this Framework. We ask references to H-2A in this Framework be removed to better fulfill the City’s commitment to Fair Housing.
3. HEJ 1.1. This policy should also include the importance of citing sensitive sites away from existing and future commercial and industrial operations, and the concerns with the incursion of urban uses into industrial and commercial areas, including agricultural operations. A much deeper discussion on the implementation mechanism is warranted with stakeholders—in some cases, restrictions can be ¼ mile or more, and a 500 foot buffer would be far from adequate.
4. HEJ 1.5. This policy is beyond the scope of authority of the City of Santa Maria and duplicative of existing regulations and voluntary efforts. We ask that it be removed.
Land Use Policy Framework
1. LU-1.1.3: Area 9. We remain concerned with potential land use conflicts resulting from allowing low density residential development west of A Street in Area 9 that is unrelated to the neighboring industrial and agricultural uses. We are concerned that this would create predictable and significant conflicts for the existing and future industrial and agricultural uses, as well as prospective residents, and this change should be removed.
2. We support LU-1.2 re Infill for the reasons stated in the policy and throughout this letter.
3. LU-2 Annexation. We restate our previous objections to the annexation of certain agricultural lands (primarily along Highway 101). Although they are prime farmlands of exceptional quality, in recognition of the need to balance multiple priorities, we do not necessarily oppose the annexation of a limited portion north of Main Street and the block immediately east of Marian Regional Medical Center).
4. LU 4.1.2 and LU 4.2 Mixed Use. Preservation and improvement of east-west corridors in and through the City must remain a top priority for the safe and efficient movement of goods, equipment, and people. We are concerned with the scope of the proposed prohibitions on use, especially near but outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area.
5. LU 6.6 Neighborhood Commercial. The reductions seem contrary to other policies supportive of infill and an efficient urban footprint listed elsewhere.
6. Goal LU-9: Agricultural areas. We support policies that protect active agricultural cultivation and prevent predictable land use conflicts.
7. Goal LU-13: Land use conflicts. This goal and implementing policies are of the utmost importance.
The type of buffers depend on the neighboring uses—for example, active recreation such as walking and biking, would not be an effective buffer for neighboring agricultural operations. Residential encroachment and incompatible neighborhood uses should also discourage or prohibit the encroachment of residential uses into industrial spaces, including active agricultural operations.
2-178
Grower-Shipper Assoc of SB & SLO Counties Page 4 of 4
Public Facilities and Services Policy Framework
1. PFS-5.2: School siting. We are very concerned with the placement of schools in agricultural areas, as this will create a sensitive site and create numerous conflicts. Such school site placement must be discouraged by the sound planning practices listed throughout the Policy Frameworks. Language on school siting must also include strategic placement and prohibit encroachment to prevent significant land use conflicts, impacts to existing operations, and community discord.
2. PFS-8 Police. We have heard feedback from members concerned with response times, especially in the northern portion of the City. We further encourage close collaboration with the County Sheriff’s Rural Crime Unit and other law enforcement agencies, as theft and vandalism pose significant hardships and cross jurisdictional boundaries.
3. We are generally supportive of appropriately sited parks and recreation opportunities for our community. However, active recreation is generally not compatible with active agricultural operations. We encourage the policy to include language about appropriate siting to prevent predictable land use conflicts.
Safety Policy Framework
1. S-3.3: Agricultural runoff reduction. Agriculture is already regulated under the Regional and State Water Board’s Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. This section contains inaccuracies and is beyond the City’s authority and should be deleted.
2. The portions related to flooding and dam operations and releases should be reviewed and updated by Public Works for improved accuracy.
3. S-4.3.2: City materials usage. We are concerned that dictating the type of materials might not be as feasible in effectively controlling weeds, pests, and diseases, which could have negative consequences for the City and neighboring agricultural operations. Flexibility in the materials and methods used should be included.
4. S-8.7.2: Water efficient and conservation. This is already regulated through the Water Board, SGMA, and basin adjudication and does not need to be included.
Thank you for incorporating these comments and concerns as the City moves forward with next steps in the General Plan update process.
Sincerely,
Claire Wineman
President
2-179
r
s ,
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 8
COMMENTER: Kelley M. Taber, Attorney at Somach Simmons & Dunn DATE: September 29, 2025
Response 8.1
The commenter expresses appreciation for the City’s consideration of their previous input on the Policy Frameworks. The commenter raises concerns about several proposed policies and actions in the 2045 General Plan Update. Specifically, the commenter objects to policies that could result in the placement of sensitive uses or disadvantaged communities near existing agricultural operations, and to the designation of certain agricultural areas as disadvantaged communities. The commenter also identifies potential regulatory conflicts and operational impediments to agriculture and transportation stemming from the proposed policies. Additionally, the commenter questions whether the Draft EIR adequately addresses the Health and Environmental Justice Element compliance with CEQA.
The concerns raised in this comment primarily relate to the proposed 2045 General Plan Update policies and their potential implications for agricultural operations, land use compatibility, and the designation of disadvantaged communities. The comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update policies do not identify a new significant impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, and no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
While the 2045 General Plan Update includes policies that address environmental justice priorities, such as minimizing exposure to pollution for disadvantaged communities, the Draft EIR does not include a separate environmental justice chapter. These considerations are incorporated into the 2045 General Plan Update’s policy framework and are addressed in the Draft EIR where relevant, such as Section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas, Section 4.6, Noise, and Section 4.9.5, Land Use and Planning. However, for purposes of consistency with the 2045 General Plan Update, this response notes that the City has removed the census tracts referenced by the commenter from the designated disadvantaged communities in the 2045 General Plan Update mapping. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 8.2
The commenter objects to the 2045 General Plan Update’s identification of certain census tracts, specifically 20.11, 24.09, and 24.10, as disadvantaged communities, arguing that these areas are largely unpopulated and consist primarily of agricultural and industrial operations rather than residential communities. They assert that the use of entire census tracts to define disadvantaged communities is imprecise and inconsistent with Senate Bill 1000 and Government Code section 65302(h), which refer to disadvantaged communities as “areas” without specifying tract boundaries.
The commenter warns that misclassifying these areas as disadvantaged communities could lead to inappropriate restrictions on agricultural operations, potentially violating the California Right to Farm Act and the Santa Barbara County Right-to-Farm Ordinance. They request that the City reevaluate these designations and, at minimum, apply a more granular approach using block group data to avoid unintended consequences for agricultural lands and supporting uses. 2-180
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
This comment pertains to specifics within the 2045 General Plan Update and does not raise a question or concern regarding the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR. However, for purposes of consistency with the 2045 General Plan Update, this response notes that the City has removed the census tracts referenced by the commenter from the designated disadvantaged communities in the 2045 General Plan Update mapping. As this comment does not identify a new significant impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Comments related to policy content will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 8.3
The commenter objects to proposed 2045 General Plan Update policies that would impose new buffers and restrictions on agricultural operations, including COS-5.2.4 and HEJ-1.1, arguing they conflict with existing agricultural protections and CEQA. The commenter opposes additional City regulations on air, water, and pesticide use, stating these are already governed by state and federal agencies. The commenter objects to transportation policies that could impede movement of agricultural goods and oppose annexation of farmland east of U.S. 101 due to unmitigated impacts.
The commenter supports limited annexation near Main Street if land use conflicts are minimized. The commenter argues that SB 1000 does not require the level of specificity included in the General Plan’s environmental justice policies and actions. The commenter also recommends revising HEJ-1.1 to better reflect land use compatibility.
This comment pertains to specific policies in the 2045 General Plan Update and does not raise a question or concern regarding the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The commenter’s statement that 2045 General Plan Update policies aren’t sufficiently evaluated in the environmental review of potential agricultural resource impacts is discussed below in Response 8.4.
As this comment does not identify a new significant impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response. However, it is important to note that the purpose of a General Plan is to provide a long-term, visionary framework for guiding future growth and development. It establishes goals and policies that reflect community values and aspirations, and often uses flexible language to allow for interpretation based on the context of individual projects.
Comments related to policy content of the 2045 General Plan Update will be passed on to decision- makers for their consideration.
Response 8.4
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR fails to analyze the environmental impacts of several proposed 2045 General Plan Update policies, particularly those in the Environmental Justice Element.
The commenter argues that the omission of analysis for Environmental Justice policies and infrastructure proposals violates CEQA, as these actions could result in significant direct and indirect impacts. The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not address conflicts between disadvantaged communities designations and agricultural zoning, nor does it analyze annexation impacts east of U.S. 101 where prime farmland exists. The commenter requests that the City revise the Draft EIR to include analysis of potential impacts from the General Plan’s Environmental Justice policies and actions, as well as annexation policies that could affect agricultural resources, and to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
2-181
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
The Draft EIR was prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which is appropriate for evaluating the broad environmental effects of a general plan. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, Subsection 1.1.2 of the EIR (pages 1-2 to 1-3), the Program EIR format allows for comprehensive analysis of cumulative and program-level impacts, with the understanding that future project-specific CEQA review will be conducted as needed for individual developments facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. Consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables intelligent consideration of the environmental consequences of the plan. The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects, discusses feasible mitigation measures, and evaluates alternatives to the proposed plan.
The Environmental Justice Element of the 2045 General Plan Update is addressed in the Draft EIR through its integration into the analysis of relevant environmental topics. For example, Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, and Section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, evaluate the potential for physical environmental changes resulting from implementation of General Plan policies, including those that may be associated with Environmental Justice objectives. The Draft EIR identifies where impacts may be significant and unavoidable, such as the conversion of agricultural land in annexation areas in Impact AG-1, pages 4.1-9 to 4.1-13 of the Draft EIR, and discusses mitigation measures and policy-level strategies to reduce those impacts to the furthest extent possible. Similarly, as discussed in Impact AQGHG‑1 on pages 4.2‑21 through 4.2‑23 of the Draft EIR, potentially significant impacts related to Air Quality and GHG are identified, such as increased emissions from future development, and includes mitigation measures and policy-level strategies to reduce potential impacts.
Regarding the annexation areas east of U.S. 101, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of land use changes and their potential to impact agricultural resources within Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, Subsection 2.6.3, Annexation, pages 2-12 to 2-13, the proposed annexation includes approximately 985 acres east of the highway, much of which is currently designated for agricultural use under County zoning and contains Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Williamson Act lands in nonrenewal status. As discussed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, Williamson Act lands in the annexation area are all currently in nonrenewal, which starts a countdown to the expiration of the contract. This includes three contracts that are set to expire in January of 2026 (71AP072), 2027 (85AP008) and 2028 (70AP148). The analysis within Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, Subsection 4.1.3, Impact Analysis, pages 4.1-9 to 4.1-13, concludes that conversion of Important Farmland and conflicts with agricultural zoning in the plan area, including the annexation area east of U.S. 101, cannot be fully mitigated, even with policies promoting agricultural preservation and conservation easements. Accordingly, impacts to agricultural resources in the annexation areas are identified as significant and unavoidable, and cumulative impacts to farmland conversion would also be significant. Therefore, the Draft EIR does include both analysis of previously evaluated areas and new areas proposed for annexation and identifies significant and unavoidable impacts where appropriate.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-182
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401- 5415
(805) 549-3 101 | FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
September 29, 2025
SCH #2025020584
SB/Var.
Dana Eady
Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria
110 South Pine Street Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93442
Re: City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
De
ar Ms. E ady:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the envir
onmental review process for the City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan (General Plan) Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Caltrans’ Local Development Review (LDR) branch is the conduit for reviewing projects and plans (i.e., General Plans) that may impact the State Highway System (SHS). Proposed land use developments and local plans, proposed near the SHS, are reviewed to ensure consistency with our mission and statewide planning priorities. To make this vision a reality, California has identified eight priority areas. The California Transportation Plan 2050 Goals include: Safety, Climate, Equity, Accessibility, Quality of Life & Public Health, Economy, Environment, and Infrastructure.
The following comments are based on our review of the August 2025 General Plan DEIR an
d Circulation Element.
Project Understanding
The City of Santa Maria is updating their General Plan to reflect the City’s vision throughout the year 2045. The planning horizon is approximately twenty years, during which time City decision makers will rely on the General Plan as the basis for making decisions on matters such as land use, transportation, open space, environmental quality, and safety. The local highway network in the City of Santa Maria, consists of the following: US 101, State Route (SR)166, and SR 135.
LETTER 9
9.1 2-183
CALI FORN IA STATE TR ANSPORTA TION AG ENCY GAVIN NEWSOM , GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• •
lb/trans·
Ms. Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) September 29, 2025
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” General Comments
Caltrans sup ports the objective: Transportation Innovation – designed to create a balanced, equitable, affordable, and reliable transportation network where pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, rail, and transit can safely and efficiently navigate to/from their destinations. Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all users and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral parts of the transportation network.
Caltrans looks forward to reviewing and providing feedback on land use developments that are proposed in and around the SHS. Early coordination with Caltrans is encouraged.
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Santa Maria is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the SHS.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient d
evelopment patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses VMT analysis for land use projects, please refer to the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide.
The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Per the DEIR, this project is found to have a significant VMT impact with no feasible policies or mitigation measures that could reduce citywide rates of VMT below the 17% reduction target by the horizon year 2045. However, VMT is projected to decrease for both per household and per employee VMT between the existing baseline year and horizon year.
Caltrans supports both Policy CIR-7 .2: Prioritize land use development patterns that reduce VMT and Policy LU-4.3: Mixed-use development. Efficient land use can place housing closer to jobs and amenities creating shorter trips for all users. Denser land use offers an opportunity to connect users to their destinations with an integrated multimodal network featuring transit, shared mobility, biking, walking, and other low- carbon modes. The state supports reducing VMT in ways that increase the likelihood that people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.
No mitigation measures were listed for reducing VMT in the DEIR. Caltrans encourages t
he City to consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee programs to help reduce impacts on the SHS. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans and Trip
9.1 9.2
2-184
Ms. Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) September 29, 2025
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Reduction Programs should be considered for land development projects with significant and unavoidable impacts to further mitigate VMT. For more information visit Caltrans Transportation Demand Management Toolbox.
Complete Streets
Caltrans strongly advocates for the planning and implementation o f Complete Streets.
These streets prioritize the needs of all users, regardless of age or ability, by incorporating high-quality infrastructure for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.
Improvements may include features such as secure bicycle parking, pedestrian- friendly LED lighting, clear wayfinding signage, and seamless connections to nearby active transportation options or transit facilities. Complete Streets contribute to a range of positive outcomes, including improved regional connectivity, enhanced air quality, reduced traffic congestion, better first/last-mile connections for transit users, and overall increased safety for all modes of transportation.
The following comments are based on the DEIR and Circulation Element.
DEIR Transportation and Traffic 4.7:
• T
his section is missing a reference to the C ity's 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan when discussing relevant planning documents.
Santa Maria General Plan Circulation Element:
• P age 17 of the Circulation Element (Figure CIR -2: Bikeway Network) is missing several existing bikeways. For example, the following locations contain bikeway facilities that are missing or incorrect including SR 135 (Broadway) and SR 166 (Main Street).
• P
age 17 of the Circulation Element (Figure CIR -2: Bikeway Network) is inconsistent with the Class I facilities proposed in the Recreation and Parks Element (Figure REC-2: Trail System). Please consider adjusting either figure to have consistent bikeway recommendations for Class I shared-use paths within the city limits. Inconsistencies are present in multiple locations such as Union Valley Parkway, the west side of Highway 101 from Betteravia Road to Battles Road, Foxenwood Lane, Pioneer Park region, South Miller Street, Santa Maria Way, Sunrise Drive, Blosser Road, La Brea Avenue, Blosser Road, Grogan Park region, Preisker Park region, Suey Road, and Panther Road. • P age 20 of the Circulation Element, please include Main Street as a Pedestrian Priority Improvement Network to be consistent with the 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan.
9.2 9.3
9.4 2-185
Ms. Dana Eady
City of Santa Maria 2045 General Plan - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) September 29, 2025
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Encroachment Permits
Please be aware that if any future work is completed in the State’s right-of-w ay it will
require an encroachment permit from Caltrans and must be done to our engineering and environmental standards, and at no cost to the State. The conditions of approval and the requirements for the encroachment permit are issued at the sole discretion of the Permits Office, and nothing in this letter shall be implied as limiting those future conditions and requirements. Project Oversite maybe needed depending on the complexity of the project. For more information regarding the encroachment permit process, please visit our Encroachment Permit Website at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep.
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet Am
erican Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
Should you have any questions or need further clarification on the items discussed a
bove, please contact me at (805) 888-1508 or email
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Chris Bjornstad
Associate Transportation Planner
District 5 Development Review
CC: V
eronica Lezama, Branch Chief – Regional Planning &
Local Development Review (South)
9.5 2-186
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 9
COMMENTER: Chris Bjornstad, Associate Transportation Planner with Caltrans District 5 DATE: September 29, 2025
Response 9.1
The commenter summarizes the role of the California Department of Transportation in reviewing local plans that may affect the State Highway System and expresses general support for the 2045 General Plan Update’s transportation objectives.
The information summarized by the commenter is included in Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-1 to 2-8, of the Draft EIR, which includes a discussion of the Circulation Element and its emphasis on multimodal transportation. Additional context is provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Section 3.1, Setting, page 3-1, which outlines the regional transportation context including U.S. 101, SR 166, and SR 135. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 9.2
The commenter summarizes Caltrans’ approach to evaluating vehicle miles traveled impacts and states that the Draft EIR identifies a significant VMT impact with no feasible mitigation to meet the 17 percent reduction target by 2045, though they state VMT per household and per employee is projected to decrease. The commenter expresses support for General Plan policies and encourages the City to consider VMT mitigation strategies such as a VMT mitigation fee program, Transportation Demand Management plans, and trip reduction programs.
This information is discussed in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, pages 4.7-1 to 4.7-18, which presents the VMT analysis and identifies a significant and unavoidable impact due to the inability to meet the 17 percent reduction target by 2045. Related policies are described in Subsection 4.7.3, Impact Analysis, pages 4.7-8 to 4.7-14, which explain how land use strategies such as mixed-use and infill development are intended to reduce VMT. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 9.3
The commenter summarizes Caltrans’ support for Complete Streets and states that the Draft EIR Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, does not reference the City’s 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan.
The commenter is correct that the Draft EIR does not currently reference the City’s 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan when discussing relevant planning documents in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, pages 4.7-7 through 4.7-8. A reference to this plan has been added to the Final EIR in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.2.c, Local Regulations, pages
4.7-7 through 4.7-8. The language within the Regulatory Setting discussion on pages 4.7-7 through
4.7-8 has been revised in the Final EIR to incorporate the following underlined language:
2-187
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Santa Maria Regional (formerly Area) Transit Short Range Transit Plan Update
In 2018, the City of Santa Maria hired a consultant to update to its Short Range Transit Plan. This plan is the guiding document for the City’s public transit program. Before this update, the most recent full update was completed in 2008, with a subsequent update in 2015 that focused on Santa Maria Regional Transit’s (SMRT’s) evening service and fare policy. In 2021 the City prepared an Addendum to the Short Range Transit Plan incorporating post-COVID route and schedule revisions. The current Short Range Transit Plan includes a series of service recommendations in four categories: performance improvement, service enhancement, policy, and innovation/technology.
Santa Maria Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan
The Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan was adopted in January 2019 to guide the transformation of Santa Maria’s Downtown streets into vibrant, multimodal corridors. Funded through a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant, the plan builds on the City’s Downtown Specific Plan and Caltrans’ Main Street, California program to promote Complete Streets principles. The plan provides conceptual design guidance for Broadway and Main Street, aiming to improve safety, walkability, and livability while accommodating all users—pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and vehicles. Key goals include reducing lane widths, adding bike facilities, widening sidewalks, and enhancing intersections with traffic calming and landscaping.
The plan emphasizes community engagement and reflects input from extensive public outreach, prioritizing beautification, connectivity, and economic revitalization. While the plan does not constitute final design approval, it establishes a framework for future engineering and implementation phases in partnership with Caltrans and identifies potential funding strategies for phased improvements.
The addition of the summary of the Santa Maria Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan into Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.2.c, Local Regulations, does not change the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. In addition to this reference, acknowledging the 2045 General Plan Update’s compliance with the 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan, the Draft EIR also discusses multimodal transportation planning and related policies in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic, Subsection 4.7.3, Impact Analysis, pages 4.7-8 to 4.7-14, including policies that support pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure. The Draft EIR describes applicable local planning documents such as the 2020 City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan in Subsection 4.7.2.c, Local Regulations, pages 4.7-7 through 4.7-8.
Response 9.4
The commenter summarizes concerns related to the bikeway and pedestrian network mapping in the General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, they note that Figure CIR-2 (Bikeway Network, page 17 of the Circulation Element) omits existing bikeways along SR 135 (Broadway) and SR 166 (Main Street), and is inconsistent with Class I shared-use path recommendations shown in Figure REC-2 (Trail System) of the Recreation and Parks Element. They also suggest that Main Street be included in the Pedestrian Priority Improvement Network to align with the 2019 Downtown Multimodal Streetscape Plan.
2-188
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
This comment pertains to the 2045 General Plan Update and does not raise a question or concern regarding the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The figure referenced by the commenter appears in the 2045 General Plan Update Circulation Element but does not appear in the EIR. As this comment does not identify a new significant impact, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the environmental analysis, or propose feasible mitigation measures, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response.
Comments related to the 2045 General Plan Update will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 9.5
The commenter summarizes standard requirements for future work within the State’s right-of-way, noting that such work will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans and must meet Caltrans engineering and environmental standards. The commenter also states that any impacted Caltrans facilities must comply with ADA standards and maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction to support equitable access.
The commenter is correct that future work within the State’s right-of-way would be required to comply with Caltrans procedures, permitting, and standards. This comment does not raise specific concerns or recommendations related to the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-189
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
This page left intentionally blank.
2-190
Recirculation Not Warranted
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
Recirculation Not Warranted
The Final EIR contains revised chapters of the Draft EIR. The minor revisions to the Draft EIR would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The revisions to the Draft EIR chapters identify textual modifications to the Final EIR. The revised text serves to amplify, correct, supplement or clarify, information in the public review Draft EIR. It does not substantively affect the level of impact nor the conclusions presented.
Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.
CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred but before the EIR is certified (Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)).
The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (items a, b, and e) read as follows:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
Revisions to the Final EIR are briefly summarized in the following discussion:
Revisions to the Executive Summary carry over language from Chapter 1, Introduction, and clarify the dates of circulation of the Notice of Preparation. 3 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
3-2
Revisions to Chapter 2, Project Description; Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources; and Section 4.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, clarify typographical errors and update existing setting information.
Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 has been revised to incorporate Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District current best practices.
Revisions to Section 4.3, Biological Resources, clarify typographical errors and order of presented information in the existing setting sections. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been revised to update the years of age threshold for buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features to be consistent with existing City of Santa Maria Municipal Code.
Revisions to Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, clarify typographical errors and remove irrelevant information from figures.
Revisions to Section 4.6, Noise, clarify typographical errors, add clarifying language regarding uses of figures, and adds relevant regulatory setting information. Revisions to Section 4.7, Transportation, clarify existing roadway uses, bicycle path requirements, existing public transportation, regulatory setting information, and typographical errors in the setting section.
Revisions to Section 4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant, include typographical errors, clarifications regarding Objective Design Standards, clarifications regarding service areas of providers, clarifications of existing setting of the city, and clarifications of existing setting of city services.
Revisions to Chapter 6, Alternatives, add clarifying language related to the Infill Only Alternative and agricultural land.
These edits to the listed EIR Chapters and Sections would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]). Therefore, the revisions to the aforementioned EIR Chapters and Sections would be consistent with the minor modifications as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
The information and revised wording of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 and Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 added to this Final EIR would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a new significant environmental impact that would result from the revised mitigation. These mitigation measures were already included within the impact analysis and these revisions make corrections to mitigation to include current best practices and Santa Maria municipal code requirements. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]).
Revisions to the Draft EIR would not result in an impact that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Finally, additional information provided in this Final EIR does not present a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the EIR that the City has declined to adopt and that would lessen an environmental impact.
Recirculation Not Warranted
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
The information added to this Final EIR supplements, clarifies, amplifies, and corrects information in the Draft EIR. The City has reviewed the information in the Final EIR and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. This decision is supported by substantial evidence provided in this EIR.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
3-4
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Statutory Requirements
When a Lead Agency makes findings on significant environmental effects identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the agency must also adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21081.6(a) and California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Sections 15091(d) and 15097). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is implemented to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR are implemented. Therefore, the MMRP must include all changes in the proposed project either adopted by the project proponent or made conditions of approval by the Lead or Responsible Agency.
Administration of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City of Santa Maria (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for the adoption and implementation of the MMRP. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a), a public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation. The City may delegate responsibility for verifying and documenting compliance with the MMRP to an Applicant as coordinator of the project and its construction, and the Applicant will be responsible for compliance. However, until mitigation measures have been completed, the City, as the Lead Agency, remains responsible for ensuring that the implementation of the measures occurs in accordance with the program.
Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 is structured to enable quick reference to mitigation measures and the associated monitoring program based on the environmental resource. The numbering of mitigation measures correlates with numbering of measures found in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the EIR.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-2
This page intentionally left blank.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-3
Table ES-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation.
The City shall require, where it is determined as necessary, applicants for future discretionary development projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update to prepare a project-specific air quality analysis in accordance with SBCAPCD Environmental Review Guidelines. The analysis shall quantify construction and operational emissions and compare estimated emissions to the SBCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. If the analysis determines that emissions would exceed any of the applicable thresholds, the project applicant shall implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below the thresholds. All mitigation measures shall be documented and verified by the lead agency prior to project approval or issuance of grading/building permits.
The project applicant shall submit all
mitigation measures to the lead agency for
review and approval prior to project approval
or issuance of grading/building permits.
The lead agency shall verify
compliance with mitigation
measures during
construction.
Lead agency
AQGHG-3 Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures.
For individual discretionary and ministerial residential projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update that would develop three or more units; would involve demolition, mass grading, or excavation and trenching phases longer than two months; and would be located within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, the City shall enforce a project specific Condition of Approval requiring the following:
a. Off-road diesel equipment 25 horsepower (hp) or greater shall be equipped with engines compliance with, or certified to meet or exceed, the California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards. Where available, off-road construction equipment should be zero-emission. Alternative/renewable fuels such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or propane should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible when zero-emission is not available. Commitments to Tier 4 and/or zero-emission equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts; successful contractors shall demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to ground-disturbing and construction activities. b. All portable generators shall be powered by a source other than diesel fuel or gasoline (i.e. battery, natural gas, propane etc.).
The project applicant shall submit the
construction equipment exhaust control
documentation to the City for review and
approval prior to project approval or issuance
of grading and construction permits.
City staff shall spot check for
compliance during
construction.
City of Santa
Maria
Biological Resources
BIO-1(a) Biological Resources Screening and Assessment.
For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City Staff, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures BIO-1[b] through BIO-1[k)]) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.
The applicant shall submit the results of the
baseline Biological Resources Screening and
Assessment to the City prior to project
approval or issuance of grading and
construction permits. If required, the
applicant shall submit the biological
assessment to the City prior to project
approval or issuance of grading and
construction permits.
The City shall ensure that
the applicable biological
resource assessment has
been completed and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(b) Special-status Plant Species Surveys.
For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO- 1[a]) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.
If special-status plants are not found during special-status plant surveys, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2B plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys, the Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c) and BIO- 1(d) shall be implemented.
The applicant shall submit the survey results
to the City and CDFW and/or USFWS, as
appropriate, for review and/or approval prior
to project approval or issuance of grading and
construction permits.
The City and CDFW and/or
USFWS, as appropriate, shall
review the survey results
and provide confirmation of
compliance with the
conditions outlined in the
measure.
City of Santa
Maria; CDFW;
USFWS
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-4
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1 (c) Special -status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation.
If federally-listed and/or state-listed individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1[b]) and would be directly impacted by development, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm. Prior to initiation of construction activities the project proponent shall submit a site plan depicting the location(s) of special-status plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and approval.
If special-status plants can be avoided, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.
The applicant shall submit a site plan
depicting the location(s) of special-status
plants and avoidance buffers to the City for
review and approval prior to the issuance of
grading or construction permits.
The City shall review the site
plan and avoidance buffers
and provide confirmation of
compliance with the
conditions outlined in the
measure.
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(d) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
If federally- and/or state-listed plants, non-listed special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, or waters of the US and/or State cannot be avoided and will be impacted by development facilitated by the plan, the City shall require mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1 per acre of impact (and 1:1 per tree), to be determined in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable, for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City for review and approval. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components.
Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).
Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).
Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.
An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.
Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.
Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.
If a federally and/or state-listed plant species has the potential be impacted, an HMMP shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.
Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, documenting compliance with the HMMP and achievement of success criteria.
The applicant shall submit the HMMP to the
City, and CDFW and/or USFWS, as applicable,
for review and approval prior to the issuance
of grading and construction permits. Within
30 days of completion of monitoring, a final
HMMP monitoring report shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval,
documenting compliance with the HMMP and
achievement of success criteria.
The City, CDFW and/or
USFWS shall review and
approve the HMMP for
compliance prior to issuance
of the grading and
construction permits.
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(e) Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys.
For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that suitable habitat may be present for federal- or state-listed, candidate, or proposed species, the City shall require protocol habitat assessments/surveys be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits.
If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the project applicant shall be required to complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.) The applicant shall submit results of required
protocol survey(s) and consultation with
CDFW and/or USFWS to the City for review
and approval prior to the issuance of any
grading and construction permits.
The City shall review the
survey results and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(f) Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization.
For development facilitated by the plan where potential impacts to aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species are identified by the project specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), the following measures shall be applied.
These measures shall be implemented during
grading and construction activities. The
applicant shall provide monthly maintenance
reports during construction to the City
City staff shall spot check for
compliance during
construction.
City of Santa
Maria
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-5
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.
All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31,if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and maybe subject to regulatory agency approval.
All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities.
Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.
No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.
If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.
For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWS approved biologist. This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of three feet above grade and two feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than five feet. The applicant shall inspect the fence weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.
All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.
No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.
At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.
All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.
Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Santa Barbara County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.
Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation MeasureBIO-1[a]). The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation.
Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction
compliance monitoring staff to document
compliance with the measures.
BIO-1(g) Worker Environmental Awareness Program.
For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels and prior to construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the City shall require the project proponent to arrange Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel to attend, conducted by a City-approved biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status resources that may occur in the construction area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP training and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.
City compliance monitoring staff shall review
WEAP information prior to the training and
verify the selected biologist is qualified with
the appropriate professional qualification
standards. The applicant shall provide the
attendance log that includes the names and
signatures of all personnel that have received
the training to City compliance monitoring
staff for verification prior to any ground
disturbing activities in the project area.
The City shall review training
materials, notification, and
attendance log and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.
City of Santa
Maria
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11 .
12. City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-6
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(h) Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization.
For all development facilitated by the plan in undeveloped areas and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, a pre-construction clearance survey for Northern California legless lizard shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The survey shall cover the entire disturbance footprint within suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible, and should identify all special-status wildlife species observed on the project site. During the pre-construction survey the qualified biologist shall inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other suitable refuge. If Northern California legless lizards are identified, individuals shall be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable cover with loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the project site, as accessible. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, for review and approval.
A report of the survey results conducted
within 48 hours prior to the start of
construction shall be submitted to the City,
for review and approval.
The City shall review the
survey results and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(i) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal.
For all development facilitated by the plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.
If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than
0.5inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following: If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure.
If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season(April 15 to August 31).
Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two.
Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required.
If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.
Results of the survey(s) shall be submitted to
the City within 30 days of completion. If
necessary, the biologist shall provide a
roosting bat protection plan for City review
and approval. The qualified biologist shall
determine compensatory mitigation, as
applicable, in conjunction with CDFW.
The City shall review the
survey results and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure. The City
shall conduct spot checks
during construction to
ensure compliance with the
roosting bat protection plan.
City of Santa
Maria; CDFW
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-7
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(j) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization.
For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, the City shall require that all construction activities (including equipment staging, grading, and construction) shall be avoided during the monarch butterfly overwintering season between October 15 through March 15, if practicable. In the event construction activities cannot be avoided during the overwintering season, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for roosting monarch butterflies within seven days prior to initiation of construction activities to determine their presence/absence.
If no monarch butterflies are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary. In the event construction pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if construction is planned to restart during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October 15 through March 15), the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a new survey in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure.
If construction activities occur during the overwintering season and monarch butterflies are present, the qualified biologist shall establish a protective buffer, ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the roosting site in which monarch butterflies are aggregating. The buffer shall be delineated on site by the biologist with flagging or staking visible by construction personnel. The construction contractor shall ensure no construction occurs within the protective buffer, including staging of equipment or stopping or idling in the buffer, during the overwintering season. In the event construction activities, or other use of equipment, is needed to work within the buffer, the qualified biologist shall be present on site to monitor construction activities and determine if the work is disturbing the aggregated butterflies. If the biologist determines the work is disturbing the butterflies, the biologist shall have the authority to stop work within the protective buffer at any time.
In addition, due to the regular movement of the butterflies and locations of the aggregations, the biologist shall have the discretion to adjust the protective buffers, as necessary.
City staff shall conduct a preliminary review
of undeveloped parcels prior to the initiation
of construction activities. If necessary, the
City shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct pre-construction survey(s) within
seven days prior to initiation of construction
activities. The applicant shall consult with a
qualified biologist during construction.
The City shall review the
survey(s) prior to project
approval and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure. City
compliance monitoring staff
shall spot check in the field
throughout grading and
construction.
City of Santa
Maria
BIO-1(k) Pre- Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.
For all development facilitated by the plan, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radius surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the Santa Maria region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest.
Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.
Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.
The applicant shall submit the results of the
pre-construction survey(s) prepared by a
qualified biologist to the City prior to the
commencement of construction activities.
The City shall verify that project site plans
include a statement acknowledging
compliance with the federal MBTA and
California Fish and Game Code.
The City shall review the
survey(s) prior to project
approval and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure. City
compliance monitoring staff
shall spot check in the field
throughout grading and
construction.
City of Santa
Maria
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Historical Built Environment.
If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that propose to significantly alter or demolish any historic-age features (i.e., structures determined to be over 50 years of age based on available City records, such as permitting records) shall be required to submit a historical resources evaluation prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The report shall address areas containing buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 50 years of age or older and are proposed to be altered or demolished as a part of the proposed project. The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All The applicant shall submit the historical
resources evaluation report prepared by a
qualified architectural historian to the City for
review and concurrence prior to project
approval.
The City shall review and
approve the historic
resources evaluation prior
to project approval.
City of Santa
Maria
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-8
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The historical resources evaluation report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be completed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). Applicants shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
CUL-2(a) Archaeological Resources Assessment.
If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that involve ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading) shall be required to submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects which include development in archaeologically sensitive areas, as designated by the City, to locate any surface cultural materials.
If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation.
If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist. The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.
The applicant shall submit the archaeological
resources assessment prepared by a qualified
archaeologist to the City for review and
concurrence prior to project approval.
The City shall review and
approve the archaeological
resources assessment prior
to project approval.
City of Santa
Maria
CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discoveries.
For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall be required to retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve ground disturbing activities within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts, may be determined to be necessary by the qualified archaeologist to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.
If necessary, the Applicant shall submit to the
City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a qualified archaeologist prior to the issuance
of project approval and the issuance of
grading and construction permits. The City
shall verify the selected archaeologist is
qualified with the appropriate professional
qualification standards.
City permit compliance staff
shall confirm monitoring by
the City-approved
archaeologist and City
grading inspectors shall spot
check fieldwork. Periodic
reports of the find and
subsequent evaluations shall
be submitted to the City
during construction.
City of Santa
Maria
CUL-2(c) Workers Environmental Awareness Program.
For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall ensure a City-approved archaeologist provides a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered.
City compliance monitoring staff shall review
WEAP information prior to conducting the
training. The City shall review and approve
the selected archaeologist to ensure
qualification with the appropriate
professional qualification standards. The
applicant shall provide the attendance log
that includes the names and signatures of all
personnel that have received the training to
City compliance monitoring staff for
verification prior to any project-related
ground disturbing activities in the project
area.
The City shall review training
materials and attendance
log and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-9
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CUL-4(a) Workers Environmental Awareness Program.
For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to invite a City-approved archaeologist to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The City would also invite consulting Tribe(s) to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP training shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP would emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and would discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with local tribal values.
City compliance monitoring staff shall review
WEAP information prior to conducting the
training. The City shall invite consulting
Tribe(s) to the WEAP training. The applicant
shall submit the attendance log that includes
the names and signatures of all personnel
that have received the training to City
compliance monitoring staff for verification
prior to any project-related ground disturbing
activities in the project area.
The City shall review training
materials and attendance
log and provide
confirmation of compliance
with the conditions outlined
in the measure.
CUL-4(b) Tribal Cultural Monitoring.
For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to retain a tribal monitor to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities that will occur within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource.
If necessary, the Applicant shall submit to the
City a contract or Letter of Commitment with
a tribal monitor prior to the issuance of
project approval and the initiation of ground-
disturbing activities.
City staff shall spot check for
compliance during
construction.
City of Santa
Maria
Noise
NOI-1 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Noise.
The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible measures as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions. Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors.
Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors. Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations. Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible. Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.
Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater). Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
Construction plans shall note construction
hours, truck routes, and required noise
reduction measures, and shall be submitted
to the City for approval prior to grading and
construction permit issuance for each project
phase. Noise reduction measures shall be
identified and described for submittal to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance
of grading and construction permits. They
shall be adhered to for the duration of the
project. The applicant shall provide and post
signs stating these restrictions at construction
site entries. Signs shall be posted prior to
commencement of construction and
maintained throughout construction. The City
of Santa Maria Building Division shall confirm
that construction noise reduction measures
are incorporated in plans prior to approval of
grading and construction permit issuance.
City staff shall ensure
compliance throughout all
construction phases.
Building inspectors and
permit compliance staff
shall periodically inspect the
site for compliance with
activity schedules and
respond to complaints.
City of Santa
Maria
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
A-10
Mitigation Measure Plan Requirements and Timing Monitoring Responsible
Agency or
Party
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
NOI-2 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Vibration.
The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible buffers for construction equipment as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction vibration analysis and identify the following buffer distances during demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions.
To reduce potential construction vibration impacts, the City of Santa Maria shall require the following:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the following construction activities: 1) within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources; 2) within 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); 3) use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical resources or 25 feet of any other structure; or 4) use of a dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or 15 feet of any other structure. The noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed the City’s architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure the FTA’s vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
Construction plans shall note construction
hours, truck routes, and required vibration
reduction measures, and shall be submitted
to the City for approval prior to grading and
construction permit issuance for each project
phase. If necessary, based on the findings of
the groundborne noise and vibration analysis,
vibration reduction measures shall be
identified and described for submittal to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance
of grading and construction permits. They
shall be adhered to for the duration of the
project. The City of Santa Maria Building
Division shall confirm that construction
vibration reduction measures are
incorporated in plans prior to project
approval and issuance of grading and
construction permits.
City staff shall ensure
compliance throughout all
construction phases.
Building inspectors and
permit compliance staff
shall periodically inspect the
site for compliance with
applicable mitigation. If
necessary, construction
vibration monitoring shall
be conducted.
City of Santa
Maria
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report, as Revised
SCH# 2025020584
prepared by
City of Santa Maria
City of Santa Maria Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street, Suite 101
Santa Maria, California 93458
Contact: Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
February 2026
Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Synopsis ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... ES-1 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ ES-3 Areas of Known Controversy ..................................................................................................... ES-3 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................................................. ES-3 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR ....................................................................................... ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ ES-4 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Overview of the Plan ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ............................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-7
1.4 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-8 2 Plan Description .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Plan Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Plan Proponent/Lead Agency.......................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Plan Area Location and Environmental Setting .............................................................. 2-1
2.3.1 Regional Location ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3.2 Local Setting ........................................................................................................ 2-4
2.3.3 Existing Plan Area Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Plan Objectives ................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.6 Plan Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 2-7
2.6.1 2045 General Plan Update Organization ............................................................. 2-7
2.6.2 Land Use Designations ........................................................................................ 2-8
2.6.3 Annexation .......................................................................................................... 2-9
2.6.4 Noise Contour Revisions ...................................................................................... 2-9
2.6.5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout .............................................................. 2-14
2.7 Intended Use of this EIR ................................................................................................ 2-15
2.8 Plan Implementation .................................................................................................... 2-15
2.9 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-16 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ii
3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 EIR Baseline ..................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.1.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.1-7
4.1.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 4.1-8
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.1-13
4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.2-12
4.2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 4.2-18
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.2-35
4.3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.3-13
4.3.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 4.3-21
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.3-39
4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.4-4
4.4.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 4.4-9
4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.4-19
4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.5-3
4.5.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 4.5-10
4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.5-16
4.6 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.6-1
4.6.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.6-13
4.6.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 4.6-15
4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.6-35 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report iii
4.7 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.7-6
4.7.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 4.7-9
4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.7-19
4.8 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Setting............................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 4.8-6
4.8.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 4.8-12
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.8-21
4.9 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................................. 4.9-1
4.9.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Energy ............................................................................................................... 4.9-2
4.9.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 4.9-3
4.9.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 4.9-9
4.9.5 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................... 4.9-18
4.9.6 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 4.9-20
4.9.7 Population and Housing ................................................................................. 4.9-21
4.9.8 Public Services and Recreation ....................................................................... 4.9-22
4.9.9 Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 4.9-26 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Population and Economic Growth ...................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth......................................................................... 5-3
5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................................. 5-3
5.2.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................... 5-4 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process ......................................................... 6-1
6.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .............................................................................. 6-3
6.2.1 Description .......................................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3 Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative ............................................................................... 6-6
6.3.1 Description .......................................................................................................... 6-6
6.3.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4 Alternative 3: Greater Annexation Alternative ............................................................. 6-10
6.4.1 Description ........................................................................................................ 6-10
6.4.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 6-10
6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-14 City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
iv
7 References and Preparers........................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 7-10 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ......................................................................................................................... ES-5 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response ................................................................................ 1-4 Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Plan Land Uses Components Summary................................... 2-14 Table 4.1-1 Summary of Important Farmland in the Plan Area and Annexation Area ............... 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2 Farmland Conversion in Santa Barbara County ........................................................ 4.1-6 Table 4.2-1 Climatic Conditions in Santa Maria........................................................................... 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in Santa Barbara County .......................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Data .......................................................................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-5 CalEEMod Land Use Assumptions .......................................................................... 4.2-18 Table 4.2-6 Plan 2045 VMT ........................................................................................................ 4.2-19 Table 4.2-7 Estimated Operational Emissions ........................................................................... 4.2-26 Table 4.2-8 Plan Consistency with the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS ................................................... 4.2-32 Table 4.2-9 Operational GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 4.2-34 Table 4.6-1 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels .............................................................................. 4.6-1 Table 4.6-2 Sound Terminology ................................................................................................... 4.6-3 Table 4.6-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Along Roadway Segments ........................................... 4.6-5 Table 4.6-4 City of Santa Maria Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................................... 4.6-14 Table 4.6-5 Range of Intensities – Ambient Base Noise Level (dBA Leq) .................................. 4.6-14 Table 4.6-6 Vibration-Related Building Damage Thresholds ..................................................... 4.6-16 Table 4.6-7 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................. 4.6-18 Table 4.6-8 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes and Noise Levels ........................................... 4.6-22 Table 4.6-9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................ 4.6-32 Table 4.7-1 Current Circulation Element Roadway Classification ............................................... 4.7-3 Table 4.7-2 VMT Impact Thresholds .......................................................................................... 4.7-10 Table 4.7-3 Per Household and Per Employee Vehicle Miles Traveled ..................................... 4.7-14 Table 4.7-4 Vehicle Miles Traveled, Reduction from Existing ................................................... 4.7-15 Table 4.8-1 Projected Water Supply and Demand in Acre-Feet.................................................. 4.8-2 Table 6-1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................. 6-15 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report v
Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................. 1-10 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Plan Area Location ........................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use Designations within the City of Santa Maria ................................. 2-10 Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Designations ............................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Annexation Area .......................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-6 Proposed Noise Contours ........................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 4.1-1 Important Farmland in the Plan Area ....................................................................... 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 Williamson Act Lands in the Plan Area ..................................................................... 4.1-4 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities in the Plan Area ............................................................... 4.3-2 Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands Within the Plan Area ................................................................................ 4.3-6 Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat Within the Plan Area...................................................................... 4.3-14 Figure 4.3-4 Wildlife Connectivity Within the Plan Area ............................................................ 4.3-15 Figure 4.5-1 Flood Hazards in Santa Maria ................................................................................... 4.5-4 Figure 4.6-1 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses/Receptors in Santa Maria ............................................ 4.6-10 Figure 4.6-2 Santa Maria Airport Noise Contours ...................................................................... 4.6-11 Figure 4.6-3 Existing Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................................... 4.6-12 Figure 4.6-4 Future 2050 Roadway Vehicle Noise Contours ...................................................... 4.6-21 Figure 4.7-1 Current Circulation Element Roadway Functional Classification ............................. 4.7-4 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B CalEEMod Outputs
Appendix C Potential to Occur Table
Appendix D Traffic Noise Modeling Data
Appendix E WSC Technical Memorandum
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
vi
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed City of Santa Maria (City) 2045 General Plan Update, hereafter referred to as the “plan.” This executive summary summarizes the characteristics of the plan, EIR alternatives, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of the plan.
Project Synopsis
Lead Agency Contact Person
Dana Eady, Planning Division Manager
City of Santa Maria Community Development Department
110 South Pine Street Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the plan. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Chapter 2, Project Description.
The plan is an update to the City’s current General Plan, which includes the following chapters: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Safety Element, Health and Environmental Justice Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, Noise Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, Recreation and Parks Element, and Economic Development Element. The plan establishes the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2045. The plan will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2045 General Plan Update, together with the already adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, will help the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It will also set the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the city.
Project Objectives
The2045 General Plan Update presents a vision for the future of the City and a set of objectives for how the City would achieve that vision. This vision and its objectives capture the City’s key aspirations for the future. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives for the plan, are as follows:
Agricultural Identity. Continue to support the agricultural industry and its workforce. Balance the protection of prime agricultural land with the development necessary to support continued population growth and the diversification of the local economy.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-2
Culture, History, and Art. Celebrate and share Santa Maria’s multicultural heritage and contemporary diversity. Preserve historic resources, foster the arts, maintain a strong sense of community through cultural festivals, and invite visitors to enjoy the richness of local expression and resources.
Community Design. Create public spaces that reflect the community identity, foster civic pride, and invite community members to gather, both informally and for events. Design streets, buildings, and landscaping that reflect the community’s history, culture, and natural environment. Use lighting, street trees, benches, and other amenities to make sidewalks and public spaces safe and welcoming, with a focus on the Downtown and along the Main and Broadway corridors.
Community Health. Grow and expand physical and mental healthcare services to meet the needs of all residents. Improve community health by addressing the environmental justice priorities of disadvantaged communities, including seniors, low-income households, linguistically isolated families, the homeless, and youth, who comprise 35 percent of residents.
Minimize residents’ potential for exposure to noise, pesticides, and industrial pollution. Foster healthy lifestyles by expanding safe and attractive options for physical activity and by expanding healthy food access.
Natural Environment and Resilience. Conserve water resources in the city and support efforts to maintain the Santa Maria River. Expand opportunities to enjoy the area’s natural resources and the region’s beauty. Safeguard the community from natural hazards, including those exacerbated by climate change.
Housing Quality and Choice. Develop a high-quality and diverse housing supply at all levels of affordability that preserves Santa Maria as a place where families can establish roots and today’s youth can afford to stay. Balance the growth of housing and the economy so that people can live and work in Santa Maria. As new housing types are introduced, (e.g., accessory dwelling units (ADUs), adapt parking, transportation, and other community features. Develop workforce housing solutions that provide safe, healthy, and comfortable homes for workers and their families.
Resilient Economy. Cultivate a diverse and resilient economy in which local businesses and families thrive and job growth keeps apace with housing development. Grow the existing economic base in agriculture, retail, healthcare, and business services, and expand into new industries. Ensure access to high quality education that is aligned with local industries and entrepreneurship.
Connected Growth. To accommodate projected population, housing, and jobs growth, focus on improvements to existing neighborhoods along with infill and vacant site development. Expand beyond current City limits when needed, weighing the short and long term environmental, economic, infrastructure, public service, and fiscal trade-offs. Establish strong cultural, design, and physical connections between newly developed areas and the rest of Santa Maria. Transportation Innovations. Develop a balanced, equitable, affordable, and reliable transportation network where pedestrians, cyclists, trucks, cars, rail, and transit can safely and efficiently navigate to destinations within Santa Maria. Focus on maintaining existing roadways, expanding walking and biking options, and reducing congestion and maintenance costs.
Transform corridors and streets from points of conflict among people, cyclists, cars, and trucks into places that bring neighborhoods and families together. Prepare for and expand regional connections with enhanced bus, rail, and air service. Prepare for technological advances like autonomous vehicles and remote work, and take advantage of opportunities and incentives to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-3
Infrastructure, Utilities, Facilities, and Services. Provide residents and businesses with equitable access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure and utilities, including water, wastewater, flood control, gas, phone, cable, and broadband internet. Deliver high-quality services and facilities for all community members, including expedient emergency response, accessible health care, high-quality education and career training, and convenient and equitable access to well-maintained parks and recreational facilities. Governance and Engagement. Continue to conduct and increase meaningful and inclusive civic engagement that empowers a diversity of perspectives in public decision-making. Provide residents and businesses with high-quality, equitable, and accessible customer service, including City communications and events in multiple languages and interpretation services. Partner with community organizations and institutions to build trust and increase participation, including among youth, who will be the City leaders in 2045.
Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the plan. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 2: Infill Only Alternative
Alternative 3: Greater Annexation Alternative
Refer to Chapter 6, Alternatives, for the complete EIR alternatives analysis.
Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the plan. Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR circulated by the City from February 15, 2025 through March 17, 2025 and input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City on February 27, 2025 are summarized in Chapter 1, Introduction.
Issues to be Resolved
There are no CEQA-related issues to be resolved at this time.
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Impacts related to Aesthetics, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, and Wildfire were found to be less than significant. Discussion of these impacts is included in Chapter
4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of the EIR.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-4
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required) associated with implementation of the proposed project. Impacts are categorized as follows:
Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the proposed plan is approved pursuant to Section15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG-1. Land use changes in the annexation area have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for agriculture. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or fully mitigate for the conversion of Farmland or agriculturally zoned lands. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Impact AG-2. The 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production, nor result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest uses. There would be no impact.
None required No impact
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact AQGHG-1. The 2045 General Plan Update would result in new emissions that may exceed the 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County. As a result, the plan would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Impact AQGHG-2. The 2045 General Plan Update could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of all criteria pollutants for which the plan region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation. The City shall require applicants for future discretionary development projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update to prepare a project-specific air quality analysis in accordance with SBCAPCD Environmental Review Guidelines. The analysis shall quantify construction and operational emissions and compare estimated emissions to the SBCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. If the analysis determines that emissions would exceed any of the applicable thresholds, the project applicant shall implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below the thresholds. All mitigation measures shall be documented and verified by the lead agency prior to project approval or issuance of grading/building permits.
Significant and
unavoidable
Impact AQGHG-3. Construction activities for projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3, This impact would be less than significant.
AQGHG-3 Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures. For individual discretionary and ministerial residential projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update that would develop three or more units; would involve demolition, mass grading, or excavation and trenching phases longer than two months; and would be located within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, the City shall enforce a project specific Condition of Approval requiring the following: off-road heavy-duty diesel engines to meet CARB-certified Tier 3 or higher emission standards or employ CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-6
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
filters to the extent that this equipment is commercially available. “Commercially available” shall be defined as the availability of required equipment in geographic proximity to the project site and within a reasonable timeframe relative to critical path construction timing. If Tier 3 or higher emission standard equipment or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available, documentation shall be provided by the project applicant to the City stating that Tier 3 equipment or higher emission standard or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available with supporting evidence from the contractor. If CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters are utilized, they shall be kept in working order and maintained in operable condition according to manufacturer’s specifications, as applicable.
a. Off-road diesel equipment 25 horsepower (hp) or greater shall be equipped with engines compliance with, or certified to meet or exceed, the California Air Resources Board’s Tier 3 Final engine emissions standards. Where available, and as determined on a project-by-project basis, the use of Tier 4 or zero-emission equipment shall be utilized.
Where feasible, off-road construction equipment should be either Tier 4 or zero-emission. Alternative/renewable fuels such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or propane should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible when zero-emission is not available. Commitments to Tier 3, Tier 4 and/or zero-emission equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts; successful contractors shall demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to ground-disturbing and construction activities. b. All portable generators shall be powered by a source other than diesel fuel or gasoline (i.e. battery, natural gas, propane etc.).
Impact AQGHG-4. Future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people or expose future residents to odors that would produce a public nuisance or hazard. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact AQGHG-5. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update could have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species, either directly or as a result of habitat modification.
Implementation of federal, State, and local regulations and policies, as well as Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k) would ensure that impacts from development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update on candidate, sensitive, or special- status species would be less than significant. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
BIO-1(a) Biological Resources Screening and Assessment. For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City Staff, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies.
If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures BIO-1[b] through BIO-1[k)]) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.
Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
BIO-1(b) Special-status Plant Species Surveys. For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.
If special-status plants are not found during special-status plant surveys, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2B plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys, the Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c) and BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.
BIO-1(c) Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation. If federally-listed and/or state-listed individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1[b]) and would be directly impacted by development, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm. Prior to initiation of construction activities the project proponent shall submit a site plan depicting the location(s) of special-status plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and approval.
If special-status plants can be avoided, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) shall be implemented.
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
BIO-1(d) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If federally- and/or 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.
1. Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).
2. Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).
3. Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).
4. Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).
5. Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).
6. Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).
7. Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.
8. An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.
9. Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
10. Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
11. All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.
If a federally and/or state-listed plant species has the potential be impacted, an HMMP shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.
Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, documenting compliance with the HMMP and achievement of success criteria.
BIO-1(e) Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys. For development facilitated by the plan where the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determines that suitable habitat may be present for federal- or state-listed, candidate, or proposed species, the City shall require protocol habitat assessments/surveys be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits. If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the project applicant shall be required to complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.)
BIO-1(f) Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization. For development facilitated by the plan where potential impacts to aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species are identified by the project- specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), the following measures shall be applied.
1. Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance.
Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
2. All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31, if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and may be subject to regulatory agency approval.
3. All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.
4. No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.
5. If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.
6. For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/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.
7. All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.
8. No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.
9. At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.
10. All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.
11. Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Santa Barbara County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.
12. Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[a]). The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation. Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction.
BIO-1(g) Worker Environmental Awareness Program. For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels and prior to construction activities (including staging and mobilization), the City shall require the project proponent to arrange Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel to attend, conducted by a City-approved biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status resources that may occur Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
in the construction area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction.
All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP training and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.
BIO-1(h) Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization. For all development facilitated by the plan in undeveloped areas and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, a pre- construction clearance survey for Northern California legless lizard shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The survey shall cover the entire disturbance footprint within suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible, and should identify all special-status wildlife species observed on the project site. During the pre- construction survey the qualified biologist shall inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other suitable refuge. If Northern California legless lizards are identified, individuals shall be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable cover with loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the project site, as accessible. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, for review and approval.
BIO-1(i) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal. For all development facilitated by the plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during a Biological Resources Screening and Assessment prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.
If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following:
If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure.
If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (April 15 to August 31).
Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two.
Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required. If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site.
The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.
BIO-1(j) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization. For development facilitated by the plan within undeveloped parcels, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, the City shall require that all construction activities (including equipment staging, grading, and construction) shall be avoided during the monarch butterfly overwintering season between October 15 through March 15, if practicable. In the event construction activities cannot be avoided during the overwintering season, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for roosting monarch butterflies within seven days prior to initiation of construction activities to determine their presence/absence.
If no monarch butterflies are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary. In the event construction pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if construction is planned to restart during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October 15 through March 15), the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a new survey in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
If construction activities occur during the overwintering season and monarch butterflies are present, the qualified biologist shall establish a protective buffer, ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the roosting site in which monarch butterflies are aggregating. The buffer shall be delineated on site by the biologist with flagging or staking visible by construction personnel. The construction contractor shall ensure no construction occurs within the protective buffer, including staging of equipment or stopping or idling in the buffer, during the overwintering season. In the event construction activities, or other use of equipment, is needed to work within the buffer, the qualified biologist shall be present on site to monitor construction activities and determine if the work is disturbing the aggregated butterflies. If the biologist determines the work is disturbing the butterflies, the biologist shall have the authority to stop work within the protective buffer at any time. In addition, due to the regular movement of the butterflies and locations of the aggregations, the biologist shall have the discretion to adjust the protective buffers, as necessary.
BIO-1(k) Pre- Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification. For all development facilitated by the plan, prior to construction activities and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors.
The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the Santa Maria region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest.
Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.
Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.
Impact BIO-2. Wetlands within the Plan Area may be affected by Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update.
Development projects would be subject to adopted City
regulations to minimize impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, Santa Maria Municipal Code, proposed policies in the 2045 General Plan Update, and
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) would ensure
potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(d) (listed above) are required. Less than significant after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact BIO-3. Due to the existing level of development, there are no essential wildlife connectivity areas within the plan area. With adherence to the proposed policies of the 2045 General Plan Update and compliance with the Santa Maria Municipal Code, implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the plan area, or on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.
None required Less than significant Impact BIO-4. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be required to adhere to the proposed policies of the 2045 General Plan Update and Santa Maria Municipal Code requirements related to protection of trees and biological resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact BIO-5. Implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
No impact would occur.
None required No impact
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan has the potential to adversely affect previously unidentified historic-period resources. Implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies, State and federal regulations, and the Santa Maria Municipal Code would minimize adverse impacts on
historical resources. With mitigation, impacts to historic-period resources would be less than significant.
CUL-1 Historical Built Environment. If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that propose to significantly alter or demolish any historic-age features (i.e., structures determined to be over 450 years of age based on available City records, such as permitting records) shall be required to submit a historical resources evaluation prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The report shall address areas containing buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 450 years of age or older and are proposed to be altered or demolished as a part of the proposed project.
The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The historical resources evaluation report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be completed Less than significant
after mitigation
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). Applicants shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Impact CUL-2. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update has the potential to disturb or damage archaeological resources. Implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies, State and federal regulations, and the Santa Maria Municipal Code would minimize adverse impacts to
archaeological resources. With mitigation, impacts to
archaeological resources would be less than significant.
CUL-2(a) Archaeological Resources Assessment. If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, applicants for new discretionary development projects that involve ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading) shall be required to submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects which include development in archaeologically sensitive areas, as designated by the City, to locate any surface cultural materials.
If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist.
Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.
CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discoveries. For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall be required to retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve 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.
CUL-2(c) Workers Environmental Awareness Program. For new development projects where a Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, project applicants shall ensure a City-approved archaeologist provides a cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers.
The WEAP shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP shall also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered.
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact CUL-3. Ground disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update could result in disturbance of human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.8 would ensure this potential impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact CUL-4. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update has the potential to disturb or damage tribal cultural resources. Implementation of applicable 2045 General Plan policies, State and federal regulations, and the Santa Maria Municipal Code would minimize adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. With mitigation, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
CUL-4(a) Workers Environmental Awareness Program. For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to invite a City-approved archaeologist to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The City would also invite consulting Tribe(s) to provide a tribal cultural resources awareness training program for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP training shall be conducted prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities in the project area. The WEAP would include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and would outline what to do and who to contact if any potential cultural resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP would emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and would discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with local tribal values.
CUL-4(b) Tribal Cultural Monitoring. For any project with the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources as determined through consultation and/or the preparation of archaeological assessments, the project applicant shall be required to retain a tribal monitor to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities that will occur within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource.
Less than significant
after mitigation
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-22
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would result in construction and operational activities which may contribute to soil erosion and degraded water quality.
Development facilitated by the plan would be required to adhere to existing NPDES permits and Municipal Code requirements which would minimize the potential for development to degrade water quality. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact HYD-2. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would increase the amount of impervious surface area and increase groundwater demand in Santa Maria. Compliance with the Central Coast RWQCB, Municipal Code, and 2045
General Plan Update policies would ensure the proposed Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact HYD-3. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would potentially alter the existing drainage pattern on individual project sites throughout the city. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be required to adhere to existing NPDES Permit and Municipal Code
requirements which would ensure development would not
substantially alter existing drainage patterns. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact HYD-4. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update may occur in flood hazard areas. Compliance with applicable municipal code requirements and proposed Safety Element policies would ensure development within areas subject to inundation would be sited, designed, and constructed as to not exacerbate risks from release of pollutants from inundation. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-23
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact HYD-5. There is no sustainable groundwater management plans for the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin; however, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be subject to the Basin Plan. Future development facilitated by the plan would not conflict with the Basin Plan as it would be required to adhere to federal, State, and local regulations to minimize water quality impacts in compliance with the Basin Plan. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would result in construction noise that may impact nearby noise-sensitive land uses. The plan would introduce new noise sources and contribute to an increase in long-term operational noise levels within the city limit as well as the annexation area. Implementation of required noise-reduction mitigation, as well as policies and actions in the plan, would minimize disturbance to noise-sensitive land uses. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would avoid or fully mitigate for the increase in construction and traffic noise in the plan area. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
NOI-1 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Noise. The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible measures as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions. Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors.
Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors.
Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.
Significant and
unavoidable
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-24
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible.
Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.
Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater). Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
Impact NOI-2. Construction activity from buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update would generate groundborne vibration, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Implementation of required mitigation, as well as policies and actions in the plan, would ensure vibration levels would not exceed applicable thresholds for building damage. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
NOI-2 Conditions of Approval to Reduce Construction Vibration. The City of Santa Maria shall review future developments within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor, and where applicable, require construction contractors to implement the following feasible buffers for construction equipment as standard conditions of approval. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction vibration analysis and identify the following buffer distances during demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Santa Maria Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits. Project specific environmental documents may adjust recommended noise reduction measures as necessary to respond to site specific conditions.
To reduce potential construction vibration impacts, the City of Santa Maria shall require the following:
Less than significant
Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-25
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the following construction activities: 1) within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources; 2) within 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); 3) use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical resources or 25 feet of any other structure; or 4) use of a dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or 15 feet of any other structure. The noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed the City’s architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources,
0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure the FTA’s vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
Impact NOI-3. Buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update could expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive noise levels from airport noise. Implementation of policies and actions in the plan would ensure this impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRA-1. The 2045 General Plan Update would not conflict with the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS, the Sant Maria Active
Transportation Plan, or any other applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy relevant to the transportation system. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
ES-26
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact TRA-2. The future (2045) citywide rates of VMT with the 2045 General Plan Update would not meet the 17% VMT
reduction target required to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3(b). There are no feasible General Plan policies or mitigation measures that could reduce citywide rates of VMT below the VMT reduction target. As a result, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and
unavoidable
Impact TRA-3. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would comply with State, Santa Maria Fire Department, and City requirements related to transportation design safety and emergency access. With adherence to these requirements, the 2045 General Plan Update would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or result in inadequate emergency access, and this impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would increase demand for additional utility
infrastructure which may require relocation or construction of utility facilities or services to serve plan buildout beyond existing conditions, specifically within the annexation area. However, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would be constructed consistent with applicable City code, buildings standards, and engineering standards. Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact UTIL-2. The overall growth anticipated by the 2045 General Plan Update would generate additional water demand in Santa Maria that could exceed projected water supplies during some Multiple Dry-Years. With the implementation of existing policies and programs, this impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Impact UTIL-3. The 2045 General Plan Update would not
generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. New development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with applicable solid waste reduction statutes and regulations. This impact would be less than significant.
None required Less than significant
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential environmental effects of the proposed City of Santa Maria (City) 2045 General Plan Update (“plan”). The environmental review process for the plan, and legal basis for preparing an EIR, are described below.
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
1.1.1 Overview of the Plan
State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires that each city and county adopt a comprehensive general plan. Elements of the City’s existing General Plan have been updated between 1991 and 2023. The proposed 2045 General Plan Update is a comprehensive effort to update the existing General Plan and responds to current local and regional conditions, as well as changes in State law that may not have been in effect when the General Plan was written. The proposed 2045 General Plan Update has been organized into the following elements: Land Use; Circulation; Safety; Health and Environmental Justice; Conservation and Open Space, Noise, Public Facilities and Services; Recreation and Parks; Economic Development; and Housing Element. The Housing Element was adopted in December 2023. Together, these elements cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law.
The General Plan defines the policy framework by which the City’s physical and economic resources are to be managed and used over the next 20 years. City decision-makers will use the General Plan as a blueprint for:
Choices about the use of land
Protection of environmental resources
Conservation and development of housing
Provision of supporting infrastructure and public and human services Protection of people and property from natural and man-made hazards Through the General Plan, the City informs its stakeholders (residents, property owners, businesses, developers, etc.) of its goals, policies, and standards, and thereby communicates expectations of the public and private sectors for meeting community objectives.
Since the plan serves as a constitution for future development in Santa Maria, any future decisions by the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the adopted General Plan.
An action, program, or project would be considered consistent with the General Plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan or not obstruct their attainment.
The plan contains goals, policies, and implementation programs to implement the City’s overarching objectives. Goals are statements that provide direction and state the desired end condition. Policies establish basic courses of action to achieve these goals, and directly guide the response of elected and appointed officials to development proposals and related community actions. Implementation programs are specific actions, procedures, standards or techniques that the City must take to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-2
1.1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
This EIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs are by necessity more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR provides the City (as Lead Agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and provides the City with greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a comprehensive basis. Agencies generally prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. By its nature, a Program EIR considers the broad effects associated with implementing a program (such as a General Plan or Specific Plan) and does not, and is not intended to, examine the specific environmental effects associated with specific projects that may be accommodated by the provisions of General or Specific Plans.
Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine what, if any, additional CEQA documentation needs to be prepared. If the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documentation may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects not contemplated or not within the scope of the Program EIR, the Lead Agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a plan level EIR. In this case, the Program EIR serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b) encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:
Provision of a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR.
Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis. Avoidance of continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues. Consideration of broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them. Reduction of paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).
As a wide-ranging environmental document, the Program EIR uses expansive thresholds as compared to the project-level thresholds that might be used for an EIR on a specific development Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-3
project. It should not be assumed that impacts determined not to be significant at a program level would not be significant at a project level. In other words, determination that implementation of the plan as a program would not have a significant environmental effect does not necessarily mean that an individual project would not have significant effects based on project-level CEQA thresholds, even if the project is consistent with the plan.
This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from implementation of the plan and provides appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or plan alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts.
Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the City of Santa Maria, which is the Lead Agency, to use when considering approval and implementation of the plan.
This EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables intelligent consideration of the environmental consequences of the plan. This EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts could be reduced below applicable thresholds of significance, whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific alternatives to the plan. In a practical sense, this EIR functions as a tool for fact-finding, allowing concerned citizens and City staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and plan impacts through a process of full disclosure.
1.2 Scope and Content
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was circulated to potentially interested parties on February 15, 2025. The NOP, included in Appendix A, indicated that all issues on the City’s environmental checklist would be discussed in the EIR. These include:
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
This EIR evaluates potential impacts in each of these areas. Impacts regarding the CEQA topics of Aesthetics, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Wildfire were determined to not be significant and are analyzed in Section 4.10 of this EIR.
The focus of this EIR is to:
Review and evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the growth and development envisioned in the plan
Identify feasible mitigation measures that may reduce or eliminate potentially significant effects associated with the plan
Disclose any potential growth-inducing and/or cumulative impacts associated with the plan Examine a reasonable range of alternative growth scenarios (including growth according to the existing General Plan, reduced growth, and alternative locations within the City for growth) that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the plan, while eliminating and/or reducing some or all of its potentially significant adverse environmental effects City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-4
The City staff circulated a NOP of this EIR from February 15, 2025 through March 17, 2025 and received seven written responses. The responses, included in Appendix A, are addressed, as appropriate, in the analysis contained in the various sections of Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. The City staff also conducted a scoping meeting on February 27, 2025 with three members of the public in attendance. Few comments were made during the meeting, with most focusing on the proposed annexation area. One attendee inquired about the proposed plan's intentionss for Mahoney Ranch. Staff clarified that the plan does not propose changes to Mahoney Ranch.
However, concerns were noted regarding potential future development in the area, particularly due to the presence of California tiger salamander (CTS) and other sensitive species. No specific questions were raised regarding the EIR itself. Table 1-1 shows a summary of the written comments.
The NOP and written comments are included in Appendix A.
Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR Agency Comments
Santa Barbara
County Flood
Control & Water
Conservation
District
Recommends all development of one acre or greater adhere to the City of Santa Maria and County of Santa Barbara Flood Control District’s Standard Conditions of Project Plan Approval.
Section 4.5, Hydrology and
Water Quality
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
Requests the EIR include a discussion pertaining to the direct and indirect biological impacts creation of trails and trail management would have on habitats and special status species.
Section 4.3, Biological
Resources
Requests that the EIR analyze impacts to local wildlife movement.
Requests that the EIR provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about the effects the proposed plan would have on the environment
Executive Summary
Requests the EIR include a complete discussion of the purpose and need for, and description of the proposed plan.
Chapter 2, Project
Description
Requests the EIR include an alternative analysis that would reduce biological resources impacts
Chapter 6, Alternatives
Requests that the EIR include an adequate biological resource baseline assessment
Section 4.3, Biological
Resources
Requests that the EIR provide a thorough discussion of direct and indirect impacts expected to affect biological resources with specific measures to offset such impacts .
Recommends the EIR evaluate the plan’s potential cumulative impacts on biological resources
Recommends specific mitigation to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds as a result of plan implementation
Recommends the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources in the EIR
Recommends the use of compensatory mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts to sensitive and special status plants, animals, and habitats.
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-5
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR For proposed mitigation lands, CDFW recommends the use of measures to protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity.
Should the plan result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that the plan proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to plan implementation.
Expresses that CDFW does not support the translocation and transplantation as a primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to endangered, rare, or threatened plants and animals.
Requires that a Scientific Collecting Permit be obtained if there is a plan to capture and relocate wildlife
Requires that the plan applicant provide written notification to CDFW for any activities that would occur in streams, rivers, or lakes that would divert or obstruct the natural flow, change the bed, channel, or bank.
Strongly discourages development in or conversion of wetlands Recommends the use of a native plant palette
Requests that any special status species and natural communities detected during plan surveys be reported through the California Natural Diversity Database
Santa Barbara
County Planning
and Development
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to the establishment of a greenbelt and urban development buffer policy to preserve prime agricultural land
Section 4.1, Agricultural
Resources
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to future specific plans
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to LAFCO’s policies encouraging conservation of prime agricultural lands
Requests that the EIR include analysis of the potential impacts to agricultural resources and policy consistency related to the premature intrusion of urbanization into a predominantly agricultural or rural area.
Requests the EIR analyze indirect impacts to county
unincorporated areas including County roadways and any
necessary roadway improvements related to the proposed plan.
Section 4.7, Transportation
Requests that the EIR analyze the changes in land use patterns that could result from the 2045 General Plan Update and evaluate the consistency of those changes with adopted state, regional, and local plans and regulations.
Section 4.9, Effects Found
Not to be Significant
Requests that the EIR describe potential impacts related to energy usage and conservation, as well as potential
inconsistencies with relevant energy reduction and sustainability plans and policies, that could occur from future development enabled under the 2045 General Plan Update
Section 4.9, Effects Found
Not to be Significant
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-6
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR Requests that the EIR evaluate (an) alternative(s) with a proposal that does not include annexation; a proposal that does not include new development on prime agricultural land; and a proposed that provides opportunities for housing development and growth through land use changes and increased densities of existing land within urban boundaries
Chapter 6, Alternatives
California
Department of
Conservation
Requests that the EIR discuss the loss or conversion of agricultural land and include the type, amount, and location of farmland conversion; impacts on current and future agricultural operations; cumulative impacts on agricultural land;
implementation of any City or County Agricultural Mitigation Plans, Programs, or Policies; proposed mitigation measures; and the plan’s compatibility with lands within an agricultural preserve and/or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract
Section 4.1, Agricultural
Resources
Requests that the EIR discuss the compatibility of the plan with the contract and local Wiliamson Act program requirements
Recommends that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land and provides mitigation measure examples
Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution
Control District
Requests that the EIR analyze the plan’s consistency with the District’s Ozone Plan
Section 4.2, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Requests that the EIR should present significance thresholds for ozone precursor emissions (reactive organic compounds [ROC], and oxides of nitrogen [NO
X]) and particulate matter and
determine whether the proposed plan will produce emissions in excess of the thresholds.
Requests that the EIR include a description and quantification of potential air quality impacts associated with construction activities for the proposed plan. The analysis should consider the fact that multiple construction projects could occur
simultaneously in any specific portion of the Plan area and provides examples of mitigation measures.
Requests that the EIR examine whether any of the land use designation and zoning changes associated with the proposed plan will result in air quality impacts to sensitive land uses such as residential, childcare facilities, schools, or senior living communities and provides examples of mitigation measures.
Recommends that sensitive land uses, such as residential, should not be sited within 500 feet of the highway. If, after
consideration of the health concerns and other alternatives, sensitive uses are still planned within 500 feet of a freeway or a high traffic roadway, future development projects should be required to adopt design features to minimize exposure to roadway-related pollutants and mitigate potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
This comment is about the
2045 General Plan Update
and not the environmental
review process.
Requests the EIR include a discussion of how materials will be removed in compliance with District Rule 1001 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – Asbestos.
Section 4.2, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-7
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised Where Addressed in the EIR Requests that the EIR include a quantification of GHG emissions from all plan sources (direct and indirect), present significance thresholds, and make a determination regarding the significance of impacts. Climate change impacts be mitigated to the extent reasonably possible, regardless of whether they are determined to be significant.
Native American
Heritage
Commission
Recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed plan as early as possible to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources
Section 4.4, Cultural and
Tribal Cultural Resources
Individual Commenters
Laurie Temura Provided comments and edits on the project description Chapter 2, Project Description
Source: Appendix A
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on August 14, 2025 and ended on September 28, 2025. Two public meetings were held to receive comments on the Draft EIR, including a virtual meeting on August 19, 2025 and an in-person meeting at the City of Santa Maria Public Library on August 20, 2025. The City of Santa Maria received nine comment letters on the Draft EIR. Comments on the Draft EIR and responses are provided in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR.
1.3 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The City of Santa Maria is the lead agency under CEQA for this EIR because it has primary discretionary authority to determine whether or how to approve the plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 defines responsible agencies as other public agencies that are responsible for carrying out/implementing a specific component of a plan or for approving a plan that implements the goals and policies of a General Plan. There are no responsible agencies for the plan. Although not responsible agencies under CEQA, several other agencies have review authority over aspects of the plan or approval authority over plans that could potentially be implemented in accordance with various objectives and policies included in the plan. These agencies and their roles are listed below. The Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has responsibility for approving the annexations to the City that might occur over the life of the plan. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has responsibility for approving future improvements to the U.S. Highway 101 and State Route Highway 135. The CDFW has responsibility for issuing take permits and streambed alteration agreements for any projects with the potential to affect plant or animal species listed by the State of California as rare, threatened, or endangered or that would disturb waters of the State. Any other public agencies which may own land within City boundaries.
Trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have a legal authority over approving or carrying out the plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 designates four agencies as trustee agencies: CDFW with regards to fish and wildlife, native plants designated as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; the State Lands Commission, with regard to state-owned “sovereign” lands, such as the beds of navigable waters City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-8
and State school lands; the California Department of Parks and Recreation, with regard to units of the State park system; and the University of California, with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System. The CDFW, due to the potential for rare or endangered species, is the only trustee agency for the plan.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has authority over the City’s Housing Element. The Housing Element has undergone separate CEQA review and for that reason is not part of the plan being evaluated in this EIR. The Housing Element and Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration were adopted on December 5, 2023.
1.4 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process required under CEQA is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps appear in sequential order.
Notice of Preparation Distributed. Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to "responsible," "trustee," and involved federal agencies; to the State Clearinghouse, if one or more state agencies is a responsible or trustee agency; and to parties previously requesting notice in writing. The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. A scoping meeting to solicit public input on the issues to be assessed in the EIR is not required but may be conducted by the lead agency. The NOP public comment period for the plan was from February 15 2025 to March 17, 2025 and a scoping meeting was held on February 27, 2025. Public comments were received in response to the NOP and scoping process.
Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) irreversible changes.
Public Notice and Review. A lead agency must prepare a Public Notice of Availability of an EIR.
The Notice must be placed in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and sent to anyone requesting it. Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the plan site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, and adjacent cities and counties. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days, unless a shorter period is approved by the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091). Distribution of the Draft EIR may be required through the State Clearinghouse. This EIR will be circulated for a 45-day public review and will be sent to the State Clearinghouse.
Notice of Completion. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse as soon as it completes a Draft EIR.
Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) any revisions to the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-9
Certification of Final EIR. The lead agency shall certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a plan.
Lead Agency Plan Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a plan because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a plan to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve a plan despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the plan identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that: a) the plan has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the plan are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or plan alternatives infeasible. If an agency approves a plan with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that set forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision.
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of plan approval to mitigate significant effects.
Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a plan for which an EIR is prepared. A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice.
Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA challenges.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
1-10
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Plan Description
The plan analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the City of Santa Maria (City) 2045 General Plan Update, hereafter referred to as the “plan.” This chapter of the EIR describes the key characteristics of the plan, including the plan proponent/lead agency, the geographic extent of the plan, plan objectives, required approvals, and the development forecasted by the plan.
2.1 Plan Purpose
The plan is an update to the City’s current General Plan, which includes the following chapters: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Safety Element, Health and Environmental Justice Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, Noise Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, Recreation and Parks Element, and Economic Development Element. The plan establishes the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2045. The plan will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2045 General Plan Update, together with the already adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, will help the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It will also set the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the city.
2.2 Plan Proponent/Lead Agency
The City of Santa Maria is both the plan proponent and the lead agency for the proposed plan. The City’s Community Development Department (located at 110 South Pine Street, Suite 101, Santa Maria, California 93458) prepared this EIR with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Raimi + Associates.
2.3 Plan Area Location and Environmental Setting
2.3.1 Regional Location
The City of Santa Maria is located in northern Santa Barbara County, surrounded by the hills of the Santa Maria River Valley (see Figure 2-1). The plan area involves all land within the Santa Maria Sphere of Influence1 (SOI) and includes the annexation of areas east of the city limits (see Figure 2-2). The City of Santa Maria is generally bound by the Santa Maria River to the north, agricultural lands to the east and west, and the unincorporated town of Orcutt to the south.
1 The term “sphere of influence” applies to the area designated by the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the probable, future physical boundary or service area of the city. Overall, planning decisions made for the city are assumed to have a bearing on growth and development in these unincorporated adjacent areas. Areas not included as part of the annexation for the 2045 General Plan will continue to be deferred to the County land use designations and regulations in the SOI. Any development or change that happens in the SOI during the lifetime of the General Plan will occur under the jurisdiction of the County. Therefore, this EIR does not evaluate impacts resulting from future growth within the SOI, outside of the proposed annexation, as part of the proposed plan.
However, where relevant, this EIR does evaluate potential impacts resulting from future growth within the city limits to lands within the SOI. The SOI is also included in the cumulative setting for this EIR.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 Plan Area Location
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-4
U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) forms the eastern edge of the city. A linear portion of Santa Maria is also located to the west east of U.S. 101. This portion of the city extends south from Prell Road then extends east along an internal farm road. Santa Maria is located approximately 25 miles south of San Luis Obispo, 50 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, 250 miles south of San Francisco and 170 miles north of Los Angeles.
Principal regional transportation facilities serving Santa Maria are U.S. 101, State Route 135 (SR 135), State Route 166 (SR 166), and the Santa Maria Valley Airport. Regional transit is provided by Santa Maria Regional Transit, Clean Air Express, and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority. Regional rail is provided by Amtrak.
2.3.2 Local Setting
The City of Santa Maria is characterized as a suburban residential community. The plan area covers approximately 15,058 acres within the city limits and approximately 4,500 acres within the SOI (City of Santa Maria 2020). Approximately 27 percent of land within Santa Maria is occupied with residential uses, primarily consisting of single-family residences (22 percent). Agricultural uses occupy 14 percent of the city, airport uses occupy 11 percent, public and institutional uses occupy 11 percent, and commercial uses occupy 7 percent. Approximately 19 percent of the city is comprised of vacant land. Residential land uses are distributed throughout the city. Non-residential land uses, including industrial and commercial, commonly line major corridors in Santa Maria, including Broadway, Main Street, and Betteravia Road. Agricultural and vacant uses are located at the periphery of the city. The city is underlain by the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Subbasin. The local climate in Santa Maria is identified as a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters.
2.3.3 Existing Plan Area Characteristics
The plan area covers approximately 15,058 acres and 4,500 acres within the SOI.. Approximately 110,608 people live within the plan area as of January 2024, resulting in population density of approximately 640 people per square mile. There are 31,412 residential units within the plan area as of 2024 (California Department of Finance 2024).
The annexation area evaluated in the plan (discussed in detail in Section 2.6.3) covers 985 acres east of the City of Santa Maria’s limits.
2.4 Regulatory Setting
State law (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4) requires each municipality to adopt and periodically update its General Plan and requires that a General Plan include the following mandatory subject areas, or “elements”: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. Municipalities may also prepare optional elements that can be organized or combined at the municipality’s discretion.
The plan has been organized into the following elements: Land Use; Circulation; Safety, Health and Environmental Justice; Conservation and Open Space; Noise; Public Facilities and Services; Recreation and Parks Element; and Economic Development. Together with the already adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, these elements cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law. The City of Santa Maria City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element on Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5
December 5, 2023. The plan may require additional updates to the adopted Housing Element, although such updates are anticipated to be for consistency with the plan.
Under State law a property’s zoning is required to be consistent with its General Plan land use designation (Government Code Section 65860). Section 65860(c) of the Government Code requires that when a General Plan is amended or updated in a way that makes the Zoning Ordinance inconsistent with the General Plan, “the zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended.”
2.5 Plan Objectives
The plan will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development, represents the community’s view of its future, and contains the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. The plan will provide a contemporary plan that will guide Santa Maria though the next 20 years. The primary objective of this plan is to update the existing Santa Maria General Plan in order for it to be compliant with State law.
The plan would implement the following vision to guide development.
Vision. Santa Maria in 2045 is a community where families can establish and maintain multi- generational roots. It is close-knit, culturally diverse, and economically inclusive. This is possible, in part, because Santa Maria offers affordable, safe, attractive, and healthy homes and neighborhoods for all residents. This is also possible because of the availability of high-quality education, jobs, and economic opportunity. Building from a strong foundation in the agricultural, retail, healthcare, and business services industries, Santa Maria has continued to diversify by expanding the training and skills of residents and by adapting to new technologies and broader economic trends. People are proud of their history and heritage. This is reflected in the diverse, well-preserved historical resources and the attractive, inviting streets and public gathering places. Museums, art venues, a strong civic sector, and the many welcoming community events and celebrations are all evidence of a vibrant local culture. Residents have convenient access on foot and by car, bus, and bicycle to jobs, schools, community amenities like parks and sports fields, and the region’s natural environment.
Public services are reliable, inclusive, and efficient, and the community is well-served by equitable, modern, and sustainable infrastructure, facilities, and utilities.
The City identifies the following 11 guiding principles, which also serve as the proposed plan objectives for the purposes of complying with CEQA.
Agricultural Identity. Continue to support the agricultural industry and its workforce. Balance the protection of prime agricultural land with the development necessary to support continued population growth and the diversification of the local economy. Culture, History, and Art. Celebrate and share Santa Maria’s multicultural heritage and contemporary diversity. Preserve historic resources, foster the arts, maintain a strong sense of community through cultural festivals, and invite visitors to enjoy the richness of local expression and resources.
Community Design. Create public spaces that reflect the community identity, foster civic pride, and invite community members to gather, both informally and for events. Design streets, buildings, and landscaping that reflect the community’s history, culture, and natural environment. Use lighting, street trees, benches, and other amenities to make sidewalks and City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-6
public spaces safe and welcoming, with a focus on the Downtown and along the Main and Broadway corridors.
Community Health. Grow and expand physical and mental healthcare services to meet the needs of all residents. Improve community health by addressing the environmental justice priorities of disadvantaged communities, including seniors, low-income households, linguistically isolated families, the homeless, and youth, who comprise 35 percent of residents.
Minimize residents’ potential for exposure to noise, pesticides, and industrial pollution. Foster healthy lifestyles by expanding safe and attractive options for physical activity and by expanding healthy food access.
Natural Environment and Resilience. Conserve water resources in the city and support efforts to maintain the Santa Maria River. Expand opportunities to enjoy the area’s natural resources and the region’s beauty. Safeguard the community from natural hazards, including those exacerbated by climate change.
Housing Quality and Choice. Develop a high-quality and diverse housing supply at all levels of affordability that preserves Santa Maria as a place where families can establish roots and today’s youth can afford to stay. Balance the growth of housing and the economy so that people can live and work in Santa Maria. As new housing types are introduced, (e.g., accessory dwelling units (ADUs)), adapt parking, transportation, and other community features. Develop workforce housing solutions that provide safe, healthy, and comfortable homes for workers and their families.
Resilient Economy. Cultivate a diverse and resilient economy in which local businesses and families thrive and job growth keeps apace with housing development. Grow the existing economic base in agriculture, retail, healthcare, and business services, and expand into new industries. Ensure access to high quality education that is aligned with local industries and entrepreneurship.
Connected Growth. To accommodate projected population, housing, and jobs growth, focus on improvements to existing neighborhoods along with infill and vacant site development. Expand beyond current city limits when needed, weighing the short and long term environmental, economic, infrastructure, public service, and fiscal trade-offs. Establish strong cultural, design, and physical connections between newly developed areas and the rest of Santa Maria. Transportation Innovations. Develop a balanced, equitable, affordable, and reliable transportation network where pedestrians, cyclists, trucks, cars, rail, and transit can safely and efficiently navigate to destinations within Santa Maria. Focus on maintaining existing roadways, expanding walking and biking options, and reducing congestion and maintenance costs.
Transform corridors and streets from points of conflict among people, cyclists, cars, and trucks into places that bring neighborhoods and families together. Prepare for and expand regional connections with enhanced bus, rail, and air service. Prepare for technological advances like autonomous vehicles and remote work, and take advantage of opportunities and incentives to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Infrastructure, Utilities, Facilities, and Services. Provide residents and businesses with equitable access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure and utilities, including water, wastewater, flood control, gas, phone, cable, and broadband internet. Deliver high-quality services and facilities for all community members, including expedient emergency response, accessible health care, high-quality education and career training, and convenient and equitable access to well-maintained parks and recreational facilities.
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Governance and Engagement. Continue to conduct and increase meaningful and inclusive civic engagement that empowers a diversity of perspectives in public decision-making. Provide residents and businesses with high-quality, equitable, and accessible customer service, including City communications and events in multiple languages and interpretation services. Partner with community organizations and institutions to build trust and increase participation, including among youth, who will be the City leaders in 2045.
2.6 Plan Characteristics
2.6.1 2045 General Plan Update Organization
The elements included in the plan are further described in this section. Conservation and Open Space Element. This element outlines the development, management, and preservation of natural, tribal, cultural, and historic resources within the plan area. Goals, policies, and actions within this element address climate change adaptation and resilience in relation to natural resources, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, urban forestry, and the use of open space for the conservation of natural, cultural, and other resources as well as for hazard mitigation.
Safety Element. This element addresses natural and manmade safety hazards in Santa Maria, including geologic and seismic hazards, fire hazards, flooding, hazardous materials, and emergency response and establishes policies and actions to mitigate hazard impacts to people and property. The Safety Element also evaluates evacuation capacity under a range of hazard scenarios, identifies single-access neighborhoods, and establishes policies and actions to enhance evacuation capacity throughout the city, consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 747 and Senate Bill (SB) 99. In accordance with SB 379, this element also includes a climate change vulnerability assessment and measures to address climate vulnerabilities and hazard mitigation and emergency response.
Land Use. This element designates the placement and distribution of future development to facilitate orderly growth within the city. This element establishes future land use patterns and specifies appropriate residential density and development intensity. Goals and policies serve as a guide for decision makers to direct the development of the city. Additionally, this element provides an overall design framework for the city with the goal of preserving community character and highlighting community gateways and views. Circulation. This element provides a framework for the City’s multimodal transportation network, addressing the movement of people and goods in and around Santa Maria, while ensuring the orderly improvement of the circulation system in response to the Land Use Element. This element also establishes policies related to the electrification of vehicles and commercial enterprises promoting Mobility as a Service (MaaS), complete streets (AB 1358) and VMT (SB 743).
Public Facilities and Services Element. This element evaluates existing and future conditions related to the provision and maintenance of public buildings and services, including parks, schools, libraries, police, fire, and water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. This element presents goals, policies, and actions related to public facilities and services in order to sustain existing households and businesses and accommodate future growth in population, employment, and development.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-8
Recreation and Parks Element. This element inventories existing park and recreational resources throughout the city and evaluates future conditions and needs related to parks and recreation. Goals, policies, and actions within this element aim to facilitate equitable distribution of resources and investments to meet the recreational needs of all community members.
Economic Development Element. This element includes goals, policies, and actions related to the retention and expansion of existing business sectors, as well as diversifying the economy to develop new kinds of businesses in Santa Maria.
Noise Element. This element identifies and evaluates sources of noise and groundborne vibration and aims to minimize excessive noise exposure and noise conflicts. This element would be consistent with the Santa Maria Public Airport Master Plan and include new noise contours. Health and Environmental Justice Element. This element identifies disadvantaged communities within the city and includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce pollution exposure, promote access to food, public facilities, and safe housing, and strengthen civic engagement in City planning and decision making.
The City recently updated its Housing Element. The Housing Element provides the City’s action plan for meeting the City’s 6
th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 5,418 dwelling units for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 to 2031). The Housing Element has undergone separate CEQA review and for that reason is not part of the plan being evaluated in this EIR. The Housing Element and Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration were adopted on December 5, 2023.
2.6.2 Land Use Designations
The current Santa Maria General Plan Land Use Element establishes 30 separate land use designations to provide a mixture of land uses for the City. The existing City of Santa Maria Land Use Designations Map is shown in Figure 2-3.
The plan would change the land use designation on select parcels, some of which will resolve inconsistencies between existing uses and the General Plan land use designations. In addition, the plan includes the following land use designation changes:
Revise the High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation to increase the maximum allowed density from 22 dwelling units/acre to 30 dwelling units/acre. Eliminate the Medium Density Residential-10 (MDR-10) land use designation and reassign all parcels currently designated MDR-10 to MDR-12, which would have an allowed density of 12 dwelling units/acre.
Add three new land use designations, Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Downtown Specific Plan (SP) and Planned Annexation (PA).
Land use changes for the proposed annexation areas east of the city limits (the planned annexation areas) are discussed in detail in Section 2.6.3. Figure 2-4 depicts the proposed land use designations, including the changes in land use designations compared to the current General Plan. Proposed changes from the existing General Plan land use pattern include the following:
A parcel along North Broadway from Low Density Residential and Community Commercial to Community Facilities (CF);
Parcels along Main Street from Community Commercial to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)); Parcels along Broadway from Community Commercial to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU); and Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Allow Low Density Residential in Area 9 along A Stret in the western portion of the city.
Changes in land use designations within the General Plan would also necessitate revisions to the following Specific Plans:
Amend the Entrada Specific Plan to reflect the new Corridor Mixed Use land use designation. Amend the Area 9 Specific Plan to allow low-medium density residential (LMDR) uses along A Street with a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre.
2.6.3 Annexation
The plan would include the annexation of areas east of the city limits and SOI. There are three separate areas (shown in Figure 2-5) that would be included as part of the proposed annexation (“annexation area”) that would total 985 acres and would consist of the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):
128-094-042
128-094-014
128-094-012
128-064-007
128-071-006
128-092-001
128-092-002
128-092-003
128-093-001
128-093-021
128-093-022
128-093-023
128-093-024
128-064-010
128-094-016
128-094-047
The first area proposed for annexation is generally bound by Panther Drive to the west, E. Main Street to the south, and the city landfill parcels to the north and east. The second area proposed for annexation is generally bound by S. Suey Road to the west, E. Main Street to the north, E. Jones Street to the south, and Rosemary Road to the east. The third area proposed for annexation is generally bound by E. Jones Street to the north, U.S. 101 to the west, Prell Road to the south, and the Suey Road alignment to the east. Much of the annexation area is vacant or agricultural land.
Existing zoning and land use designations within the annexation area are determined by the County of Santa Barbara and consist primarily of agricultural land use designations (Agriculture II with a minimum lot size of 100 acres [AG-II-100] and Agriculture II with a minimum lot size of 40 acres [AG- II-40]). Land use changes for the annexation area would include the establishment of a new land use designation, Planned Annexation, which would allow for a mix of commercial, residential, industrial, and public land uses in annexed land outside of current city limits.
2.6.4 Noise Contour Revisions
The City of Santa Maria noise characteristics are described within the plan’s Noise Element including descriptions of common sources of noise as well as goals and policies to lessen noise for sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, medical facilities). As required pursuant to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, the Noise Element would also include a map of noise contours as depicted via lines that represent equal levels of noise exposure across the city. Noise contours information informs planning decisions, including siting of potential future sensitive land uses. A map of the plan’s noise contours is shown in Figure 2-6.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-10
Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use Designations within the City of Santa Maria
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Designations
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-12
Figure 2-5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Annexation Area
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13
Figure 2-6 Proposed Noise Contours
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-14
2.6.5 Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout
For reasonable analysis purposes in this EIR, the City assumes the plan’s buildout (of both residential and non-residential uses) within the city would occur by 2045. In the context of this EIR “buildout” of the plan is assumed to be a locally appropriate projection of development within the plan area based on updated land use designations and the proposed annexation rather than development of every parcel within the city. While complete buildout is not likely to occur by 2045, the buildout assumption used for this EIR represents the most conservative approach to evaluating the plan’s potential environmental effects and satisfying the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.
For the purposes of this EIR, “plan area” would refer to the City of Santa Maria, the proposed annexation area, and the Sphere of Influence.
Table 2-1 indicates the net change from 2022 conditions in Santa Maria to buildout of the plan by 2045.
Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Plan Land Uses Components Summary
Existing
(2022)
Proposed
(2045)
Net Change from Existing
to Proposed
Acreage within City Limits 15,058 acres 16,043 acres 985 acres Residential Units 28,200 units 44,340 units 16,140 units Jobs 43,050 jobs 66,800 jobs 23,750 jobs
The plan would add 985 acres of land to the city limits and would provide the framework for development of up to 16,140 net new2 primary and accessory dwelling residential units, including the development of 1,300 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and an additional 23,750 jobs by buildout.
The plan would provide the framework for the development of up to 1,504 net new non-residential acres, with the following composition (numbers in parentheses indicate a reduction in acreage):
(463) acres of commercial uses
452 acres of mixed uses
7 acres of Industrial/airport uses
33 acres of public and open space
1,012 acres of planned future development (specific plan and planned annexation areas) Currently, approximately 32 percent of the city remains undeveloped. The undeveloped areas of the city are classified as vacant (19 percent) and agricultural (13 percent). The existing General Plan indicates the remaining 9 percent is classified as industrial. Many of the vacant parcels within the city, clustered between Battles Road, Betteravia Road, and U.S. 101 are either already slated for development or are located within a Specific Plan.
Specific land use designations proposed for the plan area are designed to ensure consistency with the updated Housing Element and existing land uses, such as industrial, heavy commercial, or agricultural. These land use changes would allow for increased residential density along Main Street and Broadway, as well as on opportunity sites with a high potential for redevelopment. Areas of the
2 Net new means the change from City of Santa Maria existing (2024) development to full buildout of the proposed plan (i.e., 2045 General Plan) by 2045; this EIR analyzes the net change in terms of potential physical environmental impacts.
Plan Description
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15
city with the most potential for change are concentrated in Downtown, neighborhoods in the City Core, Main Street and Broadway, Southwest Neighborhoods (northwest, west, and south of the airport), and areas proposed for annexation. The plan serves as the City’s long-term development blueprint through 2045, contains goals and policies guiding land use and infrastructure decisions through 2045, and brings the General Plan up to date in response to latest State and regional plans and regulations related to climate-related hazards,3 emergency evacuation routes and access, water supply, and mobility.
2.7 Intended Use of this EIR
This EIR provides a programmatic environmental review of implementing the plan. Subsequent activities falling under the plan will utilize this EIR to focus the environmental review of these consequent activities and to determine their effects. If a new project is proposed that is not anticipated by the plan, or that may result in project-level environmental effects not addressed in this program-level EIR, the future project would be evaluated as required under CEQA. This EIR is not intended to prohibit consideration of future projects or CEQA analysis of future projects.
2.8 Plan Implementation
Following adoption of the plan by the City Council, all subsequent activities and development within the City would be guided by the goals and policies in the plan. Therefore, the plan provides specific policy guidance for implementation of plan concepts. The City would also need to coordinate with Santa Barbara County, the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and other public agencies to implement policies that affect their respective jurisdictions or would affect the region. Implementing these policies in accordance with new development (residential, commercial, or industrial) would be subject to the City’s established review and approval processes, with final review and approval by the appropriate departmental staff, and/or the appointed and elected officials. The principal responsibilities that City officials and staff have for plan implementation are briefly summarized below:
Updating the City of Santa Maria Zoning Ordinance to achieve consistency with the adopted plan.
Rezoning properties, as dictated by future development proposals. Approval of tentative maps, variances, planned development and conditional use permits, and other land use permits and entitlements.
Approval of development agreements and issuance of related permits and approvals consistent with the plan.
Analyzing and planning for public infrastructure such as roadway improvements, other capital improvements, and natural/capital resource preservation and/or restoration. Conducting or considering further focused planning studies, as appropriate to future development in the city.
3 Pursuant to SB 379, which amended California Government Code Section 65302.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
2-16
2.9 Required Approvals
With recommendations from the City’s Planning Commission, the Santa Maria City Council would need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the plan:
Certification of the Final EIR and adoption of required findings, including required findings under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090, 15091, and 150934; and
Approval and adoption of the plan.
4 Santa Barbara County LAFCO must approve the City’s annexation application, which would include certification of this Environmental Impact Report.
Environmental Setting
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This chapter provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.
More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.
3.1 Setting
The City of Santa Maria is located in northern Santa Barbara County, surrounded by the hills of the Santa Maria River Valley (see Figure 2-1). The plan area involves all land within the Santa Maria Sphere of Influence
1 (SOI) and includes the proposed annexation of 985-acres east of the City limits.
The City of Santa Maria is generally bound by the Santa Maria River to the north, agricultural lands to the east and west, and the unincorporated town of Orcutt to the south.
U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) forms the eastern edge of the city. A linear portion of Santa Maria is also located to the east of U.S.-101. This portion of the city extends south from Prell Road then extends east along an internal farm road. Santa Maria is located approximately 25 miles south of San Luis Obispo, 50 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, 250 miles south of San Francisco and 170 miles north of Los Angeles.
Principal regional transportation facilities serving Santa Maria are U.S. 101, State Route 135 (SR 135), State Route 166 (SR 166), and the Santa Maria Valley Airport. Regional transit is provided by Clean Air Express and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority. Regional rail is provided by Amtrak.
The City of Santa Maria is characterized as a suburban residential community. The plan area covers approximately 15,058 acres within the City limits and approximately 4,500 acres within the SOI.
Approximately 27 percent of land within Santa Maria is occupied with residential uses, primarily consisting of single-family residences (22 percent). Agricultural uses occupy 14 percent of the city, airport uses occupy 11 percent, public and institutional uses occupy 11 percent, and commercial uses occupy 7 percent. Approximately 19 percent of the city is comprised of vacant land. Residential land uses are distributed throughout the city. Non-residential land uses, including industrial and commercial, commonly line major corridors in Santa Maria, including Broadway, Main Street, and Betteravia Road. Agricultural and vacant uses are located at the periphery of the city. The city is underlain by the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Subbasin. The local climate in Santa Maria is identified as a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. 1 The term “sphere of influence” applies to the area designated by the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the probable, future physical boundary or service area of the City. Overall, planning decisions made for the City are assumed to have a bearing on growth and development in these unincorporated adjacent areas. Areas not included as part of the annexation for the 2045 General Plan Update will continue to be deferred to the County land use designations and regulations in the SOI. Any development or change that happens in the SOI during the lifetime of the General Plan will occur under the jurisdiction of the County. Therefore, this EIR does not evaluate impacts resulting from future growth within the SOI, outside of the proposed annexation, as part of the proposed plan.
However, where relevant, this EIR does evaluate potential impacts resulting from future growth within the City limits to lands within the SOI. The SOI is also included in the cumulative setting for this EIR.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
3-2
3.2 EIR Baseline
Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “should include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” Section 15125 states that this approach “normally constitute[s] the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” This EIR evaluates impacts against existing conditions, at the time the notice of preparation was published, which was February 15, 2025. This EIR considers the potential impacts from buildout of the General Plan in 2045, compared to exiting conditions.
3.3 Cumulative Development
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows an EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.
Because the project is a general plan update, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the case for an individual development project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 provides the following direction relative to cumulative impact analysis and states that the following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of environmental impacts:
A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
By its nature, a general plan considers cumulative impacts insofar as it considers cumulative development that could occur within the plan area, which refers to the area within the City Limits and annexation areas. For example, the transportation analysis, discussed in Section 4.8 Transportation, considers the overall change in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) due to implementing several development projects that would add to the buildout associated with implementing the project. These cumulative VMT calculations are accounted for in the analyses within Sections 4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.6 Noise and 4.10 Effects Found Not to be Significant; therefore, these analyses would also be considered cumulative. Other impacts, such as geologic hazards, are site-specific impacts that are addressed on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, even when two projects occur in close proximity, their individual impacts would not necessarily compound or contribute to a greater cumulative effect. Therefore, the analysis of project impacts in this EIR also constitutes the cumulative analysis.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This Chapter discusses the possible environmental effects of the plan for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.
The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting.
The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4-2
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1
4.1 Agricultural Resources
This section evaluates impacts on agriculture and forestry resources associated with implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. Because this Program EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions up to 2045, this analysis relies on program-level evaluation.
4.1.1 Setting
a. California Agricultural Resources
According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California. In 2023, California’s farms and ranches received $55.4 billion in cash receipts for their output. This represents a 1.4 percent increase in cash receipts compared to 2022. California agricultural exports totaled $23.6 billion in 2022, an increase of 4.4 percent from 2021. Top commodities for export included almonds, dairy and dairy products, pistachios, walnuts, and wine (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2024).
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) develops Important Farmland Maps as part of its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and includes the following definitions for Important Farmland and other non-farmland land uses (DOC 2025a):
Prime Farmland. Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In some counties, Confined Animal Agriculture facilities are part of Farmland of Local Importance, but they are shown separately.
Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.
Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-2
Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. b. Plan Area Agricultural Resources
Table 4.1-1, below, provides the acreage of each farmland type in the plan area and annexation area. As shown therein, the plan area contains approximately 5,116 acres of Important Farmland.
Figure 4.1-1, shows the distribution of different Important Farmlands in the plan area. In addition to Important Farmland, the plan area also includes nine acres of Grazing Land which is considered Prime agricultural land by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) definition. There are no Williamson Act lands within the city limits but, as shown in Figure 4.1-2, the annexation area includes approximately 212 acres of Williamson Act lands.
It should be noted that the Williamson Act lands in the annexation area are all currently in nonrenewal, which starts a countdown to the expiration of the contract. This includes three contracts that are set to expire in January of 2026 (71AP072), 2027 (85AP008) and 2028 (70AP148).
This is typically nine years for standard Williamson Act contracts and nineteen years for Farmland Security Zone contracts, which are a stricter version of the Williamson Act contract that offer greater property tax savings and longer-term protection for farmland (DOC 2025b). During this period, the land remains subject to all the restrictions and benefits of the Williamson Act contract until it fully expires. Nonrenewal allows landowners to eventually transition their land to other uses while still adhering to the contract's terms during the countdown period. At the end of the nonrenewal process, the contract will be terminated and the land will no longer be under contract as Williamson Act land.
Table 4.1-1 Summary of Important Farmland in the Plan Area and Annexation Area Farmland Designation City Limits and SOI Annexation Areas Total Acreage Prime Farmland 691 803 1,494
Farmland of Statewide Importance 190 7 197
Unique Farmland 1,745 134 1,879
Farmland of Local Importance 9 – 9
Grazing Land 1537 – 1,537
Total 4,172 9441 5,116
1 The remaining 41 acres within the annexation area are not considered to be prime or unique farmland or farmland of local or statewide importance.
LAFCO and Farmland
In reviewing applications for proposed annexations, LAFCO is required to consider the proposals impact to agriculture, including prime agricultural land as defined in Government Code Section 56064. As described in Section 1.5 1.3, Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies, LAFCO is a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federal, State, and local agencies, including Santa Barbara LAFCO, all operate under different laws and requirements, each setting out different definitions of prime farmland. The definition of agricultural lands and prime agricultural lands differ somewhat from the DOC definitions that are typically relied upon for CEQA analysis.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-1 Important Farmland in the Plan Area
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 Williamson Act Lands in the Plan Area
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
Land that would not qualify as Prime under USDA or FMMP definitions of Prime, may qualify as Prime under the LAFCO definition. For the proposed plan, the only land that this applies to is grazing land which meets the LAFCO definition of Prime agricultural land and is considered as Prime agricultural land within this analysis. As shown on Figure 4.1-1 and in Table 4.1-1, the plan area includes approximately 1,537 acres of grazing lands.
Regional Agriculture
Agriculture is an important part of the economy in Santa Barbara County. In 2023, the total gross value of agricultural crops and products was $1,875,978,000, which represents a 2.8 percent decrease, or $54,467,000, compared to the 2022 value of $1,930,455,000 (County of Santa Barbara 2024).
More specifically, agriculture has been a substantial part of Santa Maria’s economy since the early 20th century, with the region's fertile soils and favorable climate supporting a variety of crops. The Santa Maria Valley is particularly known for its strawberries, which are a major contributor to the local economy. Other important crops include wine grapes, broccoli, and cauliflower, which benefit from the region's temperate climate and productive soils.
Regional Farmland Trends
Conversion of farmland is the loss of farmlands due to development or land use changes that do not support agricultural production. The FMMP, which is updated biennially, provides land use conversion information for decision makers to use in their planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources.
According to the DOC, irrigated farmland in California showed a net decrease of 56,186 acres between 2016 and 2018, an amount substantially higher than between 2014 and 2016 (11,165 acres). Prime Farmland, the highest quality farmland, decreased by 38,683 net acres, coupled with a Farmland of Statewide Importance decrease of 30,052 net acres. Partially offsetting these losses was the addition of 12,549 net acres of irrigated crops on lesser quality soils (DOC 2019).
Irrigated land conversions due to idling are often associated with water resource limitations, market conditions, and salinity-related land idling. Land was removed from irrigated categories at a rate 19 percent lower than compared with the prior update (128,105 acres between 2014 and 2016 compared to 152,627 acres between 2016 and 2018) (DOC 2019).
Table 4.1-2 shows the number of acres of Important Farmland that have been converted in Santa Barbara County from 2016 to 2018, the most recent and granular data available. As shown, the county lost 2,712 acres of agricultural land and gained 3,789 acres, resulting in a net increase of 1,077 acres.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-6
Table 4.1-2 Farmland Conversion in Santa Barbara County Farmland
Designation
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
2016
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
2018
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
Acres Lost
(-)
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
Acres
Gained (+)
Total Acreage
Inventoried
Total Acreage
Changed
Total
Acreage
Inventoried
Net Acreage
Changed
Percent of
Inventoried
Net
Acreage
Changed
Prime Farmland 66,979 67,819 955 1,795 2,750 840 +1.2%
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
13,194 13,648 151 605 756 454 +3.4%
Unique Farmland 37,324 37,710 715 1,101 1,816 366 +1%
Farmland of Local
Importance
8,950 8,347 819 288 1,179 -603 -6.9%
Important
Farmland Subtotal
126,447 127,524 2,712 3,789 6,501 1,077 +0.8%
Source: DOC 2021
c. Forestry Resources
Forest Land, Timberland, Timber Production Zones
Forestry resources include forestland, timberland, and timberland production zones. Definitions used for forestland and timberland are those found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 12220(g) and 4789.2(g) and California Government Code (CGC) Section 51104(g). These codes define forestland, timberland, and timberland production zones as follows:
Forest Land is land that can support, under natural conditions, 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, and that allows for the preservation or management of forest-related resources such as timber, aesthetic value, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreational facilities, and other public benefits (PRC Section 12220[g]).
Timberland means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species are determined by the board on a district basis (PRC Section 4526[g]).
Timberland Production Zones or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h) (CGC Section 51104).
Within the plan area, there are no official timberland, forest land, or TPZ zoning districts or land use designations. Several locations in the plan area are covered with many trees, including scattered open spaces and parks. However, these concentrations of trees would not be considered forestland or timberland.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Various policies and regulations are enforced at the federal, state, and local level to protect agriculture, forestry, and timberland resources, as outlined below. a. Federal Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. It assures that to the extent possible federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of government and private programs and policies to protect farmland. Projects are subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency.
b. State Regulations
Farmland Conservation Program Act
The California Farmland Conservancy Program Act, also known as Senate Bill (SB) 1142, established the California Farmland Conservancy Program, which provides grants for agricultural conservation easements. An agricultural conservation easement aims to maintain agricultural land in active production by preventing development on the subject parcel and prohibiting practices that would damage or interfere with the agricultural use of the land. Because the easement is a restriction on the deed of the property, the easement remains in effect even when the land changes ownership.
While other benefits may accrue because the land is not developed (scenic and habitat values, for example), the primary use of the land is agricultural. Easements funded by the California Farmland Conservancy Program must be of a size and nature suitable for viable commercial agriculture.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The DOC prepares, updates, and maintains Important Farmland Series Maps (Maps) as part of the FMMP and as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 65560 of the Government Code, and prepares and maintains an automated map and database system to record and report changes in the use of agricultural lands every two years on even numbered calendar years. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. In preparing FMMP maps, the DOC considers all information collected or received on the amount of land converted to or from agricultural use, and between agricultural categories.
Right to Farm Act 1981
The Right to Farm Act (Civil Code Section 3482.5) is designed to protect commercial agricultural operations from nuisance complaints that may arise when an agricultural operation is conducting business in a “manner consistent with proper and accepted customs.” The code specifies that established operations that have been in business for 3 or more years that were not nuisances at the time they began shall not be considered a nuisance as a result of new land use.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-8
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, Sections 51200 et seq. of the California Government Code, commonly referred to as the “Williamson Act,” enables local governments to restrict the use of specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. Landowners enter into contracts with participating cities and counties and agree to restrict their land to agriculture or open space use for a minimum of 10 years. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market (speculative) value.
c. Local Regulations
Santa Maria Municipal Code
The Santa Maria Municipal Code includes provisions for agricultural use, specifically outlined in Chapter 12-2.04A. This chapter defines agricultural use as farming or ranching activities, which encompass the cultivation and growing of crops, as well as the raising and keeping of poultry or livestock. These regulations ensure that agricultural activities are conducted in a manner that supports the city's goals for land use and development while maintaining the integrity of agricultural lands.
City of Santa Maria Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves Santa Maria administers its Agricultural Preserve Program under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act. This program is designed to conserve agricultural and open space lands through uniform rules that govern Williamson Act contracts. The city's Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves establish the basic requirements for all contracts, ensuring long-term conservation of agricultural lands and promoting sustainable farming practices (City of Santa Maria 2025).
4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
Agricultural and forestry impact assessments involved a review of data available through the Department of Conservation’s FMMP and Williamson Act Land maps. An adverse effect would occur if a proposed development would have an impact on existing, mapped agricultural or forest land.
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources from implementation of the project would be significant if it would:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Threshold 5: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Impact AG-1 LAND USE CHANGES IN THE ANNEXATION AREA HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURE. THERE ARE NO FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD AVOID OR FULLY MITIGATE FOR THE CONVERSION OF FARMLAND OR AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LANDS. AS A RESULT, THIS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT.
As noted in Table 4.1-1, the plan area (which includes the annexation area) contains approximately 5,116 acres of Important Farmland. Important Farmland (i.e., Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) is mapped within City limits. There are nine acres of Grazing Land within the plan area which is considered Prime agricultural land by the LAFCO definition.
The plan emphasizes infill development in urbanized portions of the city. Infill development would generally limit agricultural resource impacts, since development would be located within existing urban areas. However, some future development, including development within the annexation area is anticipated in agricultural areas.
The California Department of Conservation currently lists several sites within the city as either Grazing Land, Prime Farmland, or Unique Farmland. However, these sites, shown as important farmland in Figure 4.1-3, have previously undergone environmental review for the conversion of agricultural land.
The area west of A street and north of Betteravia Road was evaluated within the Sphere of Influence Expansion Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90010930) in 1994 and the Area 9 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071018) in 2011 wherein impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be less than significant. The Environmental Impact Report for the City’s Sphere of Influence Expansion (SCH#90010930) documented the conversion of these agricultural resources to non-agricultural uses, and the City Council Resolution No. 92-136 presented a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which the Council adopted on September 15, 1994. Santa Barbara LAFCO approved annexation of the project area to Santa Maria on November 23, 2004. Furthermore, in City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-10
order to mitigate the conversion of these agricultural resources, the City adopted a “Greenbelt and Urban Buffer” resolution in 1994 (Resolution 94- 9). The Greenbelt and Urban Buffer resolution established that the City would preserve agricultural and open space areas immediately adjacent to the City’s Urban Boundary Limit. This resolution protects agricultural and open space areas adjacent to the city by prohibiting the city from expanding its Urban Boundary Limit into such areas. As such, the areas immediately adjacent to the Area 9 Specific Plan area would be preserved under this resolution. Because the impacts of the conversion of these agricultural resources on the site were previously offset by the establishment of the City’s Greenbelt and Urban Buffer, impacts were found not to be significant (City of Santa Maria 2011). As such, conversion of the area known as Area 9 would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources. Similarly, the area south of Main Street between Blosser Road and Hanson Way was evaluated within the Sphere of Influence Expansion Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90010930) in 1994. As part of the Sphere of Influence Expansion project, this area was assigned urban growth potentials as part of the West Main Specific Plan and did not include area identified for future agricultural use. Conversion of this area would not result in significant impacts as the area has been previously evaluated and slated for urban growth in previous environmental analyses.
The area east of South Blosser Road, south of West Stowell Road, and north of Battles Road was evaluated within the Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1994107909) in 2020 wherein impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be less than significant. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report determined that the Blosser-Southeast Specific Plan area has been anticipated for non-agricultural use, including residential development, since the evaluation of the City’s Sphere of Influence Boundary Amendment and Concurrent Annexation Program in 1992. As part of the Sphere of Influence Boundary Amendment and Concurrent Annexation Program, this area was assigned residential growth potentials and did not include area identified for future agricultural use. As such, conversion of this area would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources.
The area east of Blosser Road and south of Battles Road was evaluated within the Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015011029) in 2015. Impacts to agricultural resources within this Environmental Impact Report were determined to be less than significant as this area was identified an infill site located within the urbanized city, surrounded by urban development and is planned and zoned for future urban development. Prior to the preparation of the Betteravia Plaza General Plan Amendment, Land Use and Zone Change and Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015011029), an Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this area indicating the site had a land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of Light Manufacturing that has since been changed to allow for retail commercial and professional office uses. As the area has been designated for development and has been previously evaluated in previous environmental documents, impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land would be less than significant.
As such, future development adjacent to agricultural land would not lead to farmland loss due to potential conflicts between existing farming operations and new urban or non-agricultural uses. The 2045 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts as it would not result in the conversion of farmland to non—agricultural uses that have not already been evaluated in previous environmental documents and would not result in conflicting uses introduced adjacent to existing farmland.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
In addition to Important Farmland, the plan area contains three properties that are under Williamson Act contracts within the central portion of the proposed annexation area. As shown in Figure 4.1-2, these lands are currently in nonrenewal, which starts a countdown to the expiration of the contract. The contracts will expire on January 1, 2026 (71AP072), January 1, 2027 (85AP008), and January 1, 2028 (70AP148). During the non-renewal period, the land remains subject to all the restrictions and benefits of the Williamson Act contract until it fully expires. At the end of the nonrenewal process, the contract will be terminated and the land will no longer be under contract as Williamson Act land. As discussed within Chapter 2, Project Description, land use changes for the annexation area would include the establishment of a new land use designation, Planned Annexation, which would allow for a mix of commercial, residential, industrial, and public land uses in annexed land outside of current city limits. This could conflict with the existing Williamson Act contracts. However, as these lands are currently within nonrenewal and are set to expire, it is anticipated that the contracts will have expired by the time of plan buildout thereby reducing the likelihood of a direct conflict at the time of buildout. Further, development facilitated by the plan that would occur within Williamson Act land would be required to undergo individual environmental review at the time a project is proposed for both the proposed project and the annexation of the area. As it is not reasonably foreseeable for new discretionary development in the annexation area to be proposed, reviewed, and approved, between the date of publication of this EIR and the expiration date of the current remaining Williamson Act contracts in the annexation area, development facilitated by the plan would not result in the conversion of Williamson Act Lands.
Impacts related to the conversion of Williamson Act lands would be less than significant.
The Conservation and Open Space Element and the Land Use Element of the plan seeks to encourage the continued operation of agricultural lands in and around Santa Maria. The goals and policies listed below from the General Plan address the preservation of agricultural lands:
Goal COS-2: Working lands. Sustainable and productive working lands support healthy local ecosystems.
Policy COS-2.1: Agricultural preservation. Collaborate with Santa Barbara County and local landowners to preserve existing agricultural uses on lands not proposed for future development, including croplands and rangelands.
Action COS-2.1.1: During review of projects that would alter or convert existing agricultural uses, balance state and regional efforts to preserve existing agricultural uses, including the Santa Barbara County Right to Farm Ordinance, clustering of urban land uses/development, and transfer of development rights —with other factors. These include providing adequate housing, achieving a jobs-housing balance, supporting economic sustainability, and advancing other City interests.
Action COS-2.1.2: To the extent feasible, support the establishment of agricultural conservation easements on land within the City’s Sphere of Influence that is zoned for agriculture and designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland by initiating discussions with property owners on eligible sites and providing education and technical assistance to interested owners.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-12
Goal LU-1: Balanced mix of uses. A balanced mix of land uses meets the present and future housing, employment, and recreation needs of the community.
Policy LU-1.2: Infill development. Prioritize the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized parcels with a focus on infill of existing residential, commercial, and industrial capacity to revitalizinge downtown and deteriorating neighborhoods, to the extent feasible. Accommodate growth while making every effort to preserve agricultural lands and open space.
Goal LU-2: Annexation as outward growth. Santa Maria expands in an orderly and efficient manner to accommodate future growth.
Policy LU-2.1: Planned Annexation aArea. Expand Sphere of Influence and annex the Planned Annexation aAreas identified on the General Plan Land Use Map to meet housing and jobs development goals.
Goal LU-9: Agricultural areas. Thriving agricultural lands generate fresh produce for the State and preserve Santa Maria’s history as a farming community.
Policy LU-9.1: Agricultural resources. Accommodate future city growth while making every feasible effort to Preserve agricultural resources in the city on land not proposed for future development, specifically those with State or local importance. Annexation into areas utilized for agriculture shall occur in an orderly and planned manner, consistent with the General Plan and LAFCO policies.
Policy LU-9.2: Agricultural land use conflicts. Support ongoing agricultural activities by discouraging land uses that conflict with adjacent farming activities.
Policy LU-9.3: Agricultural buffers. Update the Municipal Code to require buffers between new development and lands designated for active agricultural uses. Examples of buffers include but are not limited to roadways, stormwater basins, and landscaped or open space areas.
Policy LU-9.4: Agricultural land impact avoidance and minimization. Require projects adjacent to agricultural land to prevent the spread of invasive plant species during construction.
A determination of the impacts to Important Farmland, agricultural zoning and conflicts with Williamson Act contracts would be made on a case-by-case basis as individual projects are proposed. A majority of development facilitated by the plan would likely not create significant impacts, particularly for development that would be located in urbanized areas of the city. However, because implementation of the plan would allow for future conversion of Important Farmland and conflict with agricultural zoning within the annexation area, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
The 2045 General Plan Update includes policies which are intended to minimize future impacts to agricultural lands in and around Santa Maria. However, there is no set of General Plan policies or mitigation measures that could feasibly reduce the identified impact to agricultural lands in the annexation area.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Agricultural Resources
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
Significance After Mitigation
Policies included in the 2045 General Plan Update would reduce potential adverse impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland and Williamson Act contract lands within the annexation area to the extent feasible through preservation efforts and by requiring conservation easements.
Nonetheless, even with compliance with General Plan actions, conversion of Important Farmland and conflicts with agricultural zoning could still occur. While these policies would help reduce the extent of farmland conversion and conflicts with agricultural zoning in the annexation area to the extent feasible, it would not be guaranteed that development facilitated by the plan would avoid or fully mitigate for the conversion of Farmland and agriculturally zoned lands within the annexation area. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 3: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Threshold 4: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
Impact AG-2 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR
FOREST LAND, TIMBERLAND, OR TIMBERLAND PRODUCTION, NOR RESULT IN THE LOSS OF FOREST LAND OR CONVERT FOREST LAND TO NON-FOREST USES. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.
As discussed above in Section 4.1.1(b), there are no zoned TPZs or forest lands within the plan area.
Accordingly, the proposed land use pattern would not result in rezoning of any existing forest land or timberlands within the plan area. Because no forest land or timber areas are within the plan area, there would be no impact on conversion of forest land or conflicts with land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required because there would be no impact.
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Regional cumulative impacts consider the City- wide impacts together with similar impacts of reasonably anticipated regional projects/programs.
The general approach to cumulative impact analysis used in this EIR, as well as the determination of the cumulative impact analysis area, is discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, Subsection
3.3, Cumulative Development.
Since the mid-20th century, the Santa Maria region has experienced steady urban expansion resulting in Important Farmland being incrementally converted to residential, commercial, and industrial uses (DOC 2015). This trend has been especially pronounced in areas surrounding Santa City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.1-14
Maria, where population growth and housing demand have led to the conversion of prime farmland. Future development within the cumulative impact analysis area would convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and may result in conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts. In addition, future development adjacent to agricultural land has the potential to result in a loss of farmland due to land use conflicts between existing agricultural activities and new non-agricultural development, which adds to the cumulative conversion of agricultural lands, including areas designated as Important Farmland by the FMMP. Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources would be significant.
As identified in Impact AG-1, the 2045 General Plan Update would result in conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use and could conflict with agricultural zoning in the annexation area. Development facilitated by the plan could result in incompatibilities between new residences and adjacent agricultural uses resulting in the potential conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses. Implementation of 2045 General Plan policies would reduce the contribution of the plan to cumulative agricultural land impacts. However, these actions would not ensure that the future development facilitated by the plan in the annexation area could feasibly relocate or realign to avoid impacts, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, cumulative impacts to agricultural resources would be significant, and the 2045 General Plan Update would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on agricultural resource impacts.
Because there is no forestland within the plan area or immediately adjacent areas, future development within the cumulative impact analysis area would not convert forestland to non-forest uses and thus, would not result in conflicts forest zoning. Cumulative impacts to forestland and timber resources would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1
4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section describes current air quality conditions in and around the City of Santa Maria and evaluates the possible impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could result from implementation of the 2045 General Plan Update. Information included in this section is based on the policies from the plan, Environmental Background Report (Santa Maria 2020) and the Santa Maria Municipal Code (Santa Maria 2024), as well as transportation VMT data produced by GHD in June 2025.
4.2.1 Setting
a. Air Quality Setting
Climate and Topography
The plan area is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) that includes all of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The climate of the Santa Barbara County area and all of the SCCAB is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the location of the semi-permanent high-pressure cell in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. The Mediterranean climate of the region produces moderate average temperatures, although slightly more extreme temperatures can be reached in the winter and summer. The proximity of the Pacific Ocean tends to moderate temperature near the coast while the steep mountain ranges produce a significant “orographic effect.” Orographic effect occurs when storms approaching the county from the Pacific Ocean are forced upward against the mountains resulting in increased precipitation release with topographic elevation. The orographic effect, in conjunction with steep, short watersheds occasionally result in flash flooding along the county's south coast.
Santa Barbara County is situated among a series of transverse mountain ranges, the only ranges within the continental United States to trend in an east-westerly direction. Most of the County's developed areas are located along the coastal plain and in the inter-mountain valleys, such as Santa Maria which is located within the Santa Maria Valley. The warmest months of the year in Santa Maria are July through October, with an average maximum temperature of 74 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest months of the year are December and January with an average minimum temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate is semi-arid, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Table 4.2-1 summarizes local climatic conditions.
Table 4.2-1 Climatic Conditions in Santa Maria
Average annual rainfall 13.9 inches
Average maximum temperature (annual) 74 °F
Average minimum temperature (annual) 39 °F
Warmest month(s) July through September
Coolest month(s) December & January
Source: U.S. Climate Data 2023.
Note: Data is based on historic climate in Santa Maria.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-2
Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants, which are discussed in more detail under Section 4.2.2, Regulatory Setting. Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere and include carbon monoxide (CO), VOC (volatile organic gases)/reactive organic gases (ROG),
1 nitric oxide (NOX), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Secondary criteria pollutants are created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone (O3), and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). The characteristics, sources and effects of criteria pollutants are discussed in the following subsections.
Ozone
O3 is a highly oxidative unstable gas produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and ROG. ROG is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with specific exclusions), and NOX is composed of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG is formed during the combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. As a highly reactive molecule, O3 readily combines with many different atmosphere components. Consequently, high O3 levels tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX levels are present to sustain the O3 formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, O3 levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, O3 is considered a regional pollutant. In addition, because O3 requires sunlight to form, it mainly occurs in concentrations considered serious between April and October. People most at risk from O
3 include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. In addition, people with reduced intake of certain nutrients, such as vitamins C and E, are at greater risk from O3 exposure. Depending on the level of exposure, O3 can cause coughing and a sore or scratch throat; make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously and cause pain when taking a deep breath; inflame and damage the airways; make the lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis; and increase the frequency of asthma attacks (USEPA 2025a).
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a localized pollutant found in high concentrations only near its source. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic's incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes.
When CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability to get oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where they need more oxygen than usual. As a result, they are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short-
1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this EIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain, also known as angina (USEPA 2025b).
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a by-product of coal, oil, gas or diesel fuel combustion. The primary sources are motor vehicles and industrial boilers, and furnaces. The principal form of NOx produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2, commonly called NOx. NO2 is a reactive, oxidizing gas and an acute irritant capable of damaging cell linings in the respiratory tract. Breathing air with a high concentration of NO2 can irritate airways in the human respiratory system. Such exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing), hospital admissions, and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma and children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2 (USEPA 2025c). NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of O3/smog and acid rain.
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is included in a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore and burning fuels with a high sulfur content by locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Short-term exposures to SO
2 can harm the human respiratory system and
make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 (USEPA 2025d).
Particulate Matter
Suspended atmospheric PM10 (particular matter with diameter of 10 microns or less) and PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 microns or less) are comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mist. Both PM 10 and PM2.5 are emitted into the
atmosphere as by-products of coal, gas, or diesel fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads. The atmosphere, through chemical reactions, can form particulate matter. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 can be very different. PM10 is generally associated with dust mobilized by wind and vehicles. In contrast, PM2.5 is generally associated with combustion processes and formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM10 can cause increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death, reduced visibility, surface soiling. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hours duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases (CARB 2025a).
Lead
Pb is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. The major sources of Pb emissions historically have been mobile and industrial. However, due to the USEPA ’s regulatory efforts to remove Pb from gasoline, atmospheric Pb concentrations have declined City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-4
substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in Pb emissions occurred before 1990 due to the removal of Pb from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Pb emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries at least partly due to national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (USEPA 2014). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of Pb emissions. The highest Pb level in the air is generally found near Pb smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and Pb-acid battery manufacturers. Pb can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and cardiovascular system depending on exposure. Pb exposure also affects the oxygen- carrying capacity of the blood. The Pb effects most likely encountered in current populations are neurological in children. Infants and young children are susceptible to Pb exposures, contributing to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (USEPA 2025e).
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances and a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in diameter (about 1/70 th the
diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs (CARB 2025a).
TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2025f).
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The federal and State governments have authority under the federal and State CAA to regulate emissions of airborne pollutants and have established AAQS for the protection of public health. An air quality standard is defined as “the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harming public health” (CARB 2025b) The USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the State equivalent in California. Federal and State AAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, sulfur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. AAQS are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under the age of 14, the elderly (over the age of 65), persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases (USEPA 2025g). In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
chloride (CARB 2025c). Table 4.2-2 lists the current NAAQS as well as the CAAQS for regulated pollutants.
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Ozone 1-Hour – 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual − −
24-Hour − 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual − 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM25 Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 −
Lead 30-Day Average − 1.5 µg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 −
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: USEPA 2025h
USEPA and CARB designate air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the AAQS standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas that are unclassified have insufficient monitoring data for a specific pollutant to determine attainment or nonattainment status, although unclassified areas are typically treated as attainment for a specific pollutant. Since attainment and nonattainment designation is pollutant-specific, an area may be classified as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment for another. Similarly, because the State and federal standards differ, an area could be classified as attainment for the federal standards of a pollutant and as nonattainment for the State standards of the same pollutant. The NAAQS (other than O 3, PM10, PM2.5, and those
based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The CAAQS are not to be exceeded during a three-year period. The attainment status for Santa Barbara County is included in Table 4.2-3.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-6
Table 4.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in Santa Barbara County Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 Nonattainment-Transitional Unclassified/Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
O3 = Ozone; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Sources: SBCAPCD 2025
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) monitors criteria pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, develops strategies to meet the standards. As shown in Table 4.2-3, Santa Barbara County is in non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone State standards and PM
10 State standard (SBAPCD 2025).
More than 250 air quality monitoring stations operated by federal, State, and local agencies comprise the California Ambient Air Monitoring Network, including ten stations in Santa Barbara County (CARB 2025d). There are two existing monitoring stations in Santa Maria: Orcutt Road and 906 South Broadway. The Orcutt Road Station collects data on ozone, PM
2.5, PM10; and the 906
South Broadway Station collects data on ozone, PM2.5, PM10, and NO2. NO2 data from the Santa Maria 906 South Broadway Station is only available for 2021, therefore, NO2 data from the Lompoc- South H Street Station located approximately 27 miles south of the city is used as data from the Lompoc – South H Street Station is available through 2023. The data collected at these stations are generally considered to be representative of the baseline air quality experienced in Santa Maria.
Table 4.2-4 summarizes the annual air quality data for the local airshed. As shown, PM10 measurements exceeded the State standards once in 2021, three times in 2022, and ten times in 2023. No other State or federal standards were exceeded at these monitoring stations. Since CO and SO2 are in attainment with the SCCAB region, these pollutants are not monitored at the nearest air monitoring stations and ambient air quality is not reported for these pollutants.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
Table 4.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 0.0751 0.0572 0.0602
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.0501 0.0542 0.0532
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Highest 1 Hour 251 243 253
Number of days above CAAQS (>0.180 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days above NAAQS (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 2 56.11 75.62 114.52 Number of days above State standard (>50 µg/m3) 2 1 3 10 Number of days above federal standard (>150 µg/m3)2 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 3 12.41 13.52 26.92 Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 3 0 0 0 Notes: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 Data from the Santa Maria Station at 906 South Broadway 2 Data from the Santa Maria Station at Orcutt Road
3 Data from the Lompoc-South H Street Station
Source: CARB 2025d
Sensitive Receptors
Federal and State AAQS have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; the elderly over 65; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.
Sensitive receptor locations are therefore typically associated with residences, schools, and hospitals. The Dignity Health – Marian Regional Medical Center is located at 1400 East Church Street in Santa Maria. Additional sensitive receptors in the plan area include residences and K-12 schools located throughout the city. Schools in Santa Maria are identified in Section 4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant.
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Setting
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. Gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs, because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
Different GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years).
Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO 2) is used to relate the
amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-8
(CO2e), which is the amount of GHG multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of 1. By contrast, methane has a 100-year GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).2
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with leakage from natural gas pipelines and processes, agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (USEPA 2025h).
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred, because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates from historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record, which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The IPCC expressed in their Sixth Assessment Report that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations is
unequivocally due to human activities (IPCC 2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land and has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO
2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021).
GHGs in the atmosphere regulate the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be approximately 33 degrees Celsius cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2013). However, since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by 47 percent, 156 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (IPCC 2021). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere far beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.
2 The IPCC’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by CARB uses a GWP of 25 for CH4, consistent with the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
GHG Emissions Inventory
Global GHG Emissions Inventory
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 47,000 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (U.S. EPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 MMT of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed three percent, and two percent was due to international transportation sources. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change and forestry. (U.S. EPA 2021b).
United States GHG Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO
2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent
from 2018 to 2019; since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of
0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease in carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (U.S. EPA 2021c).
California GHG Emissions Inventory
Based on the CARB California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2022, California produced 371.1 MMT of CO
2e in 2022, which is 9.3 MMT of CO2e lower than 2021 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 39 percent of the State of California’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 23 percent of the State’s GHG emissions while electric power accounts for approximately 16 percent (CARB 2025e). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, the State of California (State) achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO
2e (CARB 2021). The annual 2030 statewide
target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2017).
Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21
st century than were observed during the 20th century. The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.13°C (0.23°F) less than the record set in 2016 and it is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the last year's (2021) value, which now ranks as the seventh City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-10
highest (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2023). Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature obtained from station observations jointly indicate that Land Surface Air Temperature and sea surface temperatures have increased.
Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years.
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (California Natural Resource Agency 2019) includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the State and regionally specific climate change case studies. However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and Statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that climate change could generate in California.
Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by
2.4 to 3.2°C in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C in the next century. Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the State has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (California Natural Resource Agency 2019). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the State. With increasing temperatures, shifting weather patterns, longer dry seasons, and more dry fuel loads, the frequency of large wildfires and area burned is expected to increase (California Natural Resources Agency 2021).
Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.
Year-to-year variability in Statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). For example, the winter of 2022-2023 had severe storms and flooding from increased rainfall and snowmelt, which the California Department of Water Resources identified as “the latest example that California’s climate is becoming more extreme” (California Department of Wate Resources 2023). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western United States, including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts. The Sierra snowpack provides most of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack. Projections indicate that the average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (California Natural Resource Agency 2019).
Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (California Natural Resource Agency 2019). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2022, observed by satellites, is approximately
3.4 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2023). Global mean sea levels in 2013 were about 0.23 meter higher than those of 1880 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures.
The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise ranging between 0.25 to 1.01 meters by 2100 with the sea level ranges dependent on a low, intermediate, or high GHG emissions scenario (IPCC 2021). A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (California Natural Resource Agency 2019).
Furthermore, increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.
Agriculture
California has an over $51 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2022). Higher CO
2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (California Natural Resource Agency 2019). Temperature increases could also change the time of year that certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).
Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions due to higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; California Natural Resource Agency 2019).
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-12
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Supreme Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.
Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards (CAFE)
Under the CAA, corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards have been set for passenger cars and light trucks. The State of California has traditionally had a waiver to set its own more stringent fuel efficiency standards. In 2020, the NHTSA and USEPA implemented the Safer Affordable Fuel- Efficient Vehicles Rule (SAFE Rule). Part One of the SAFE Rule revoked a waiver granted by USEPA to the State of California to enforce more stringent emission standards for motor vehicles those required by USEPA for the explicit purpose of GHG reduction. However, in 2021 the federal government formally proposed to roll back portions of the SAFE Rule, restoring California’s right to enforce more stringent fuel efficiency standards (NHTSA 2022). In December 2021, the NHTSA finalized rules to repeal the SAFE I Rule established in 2020. However, the status of California’s fuel efficiency standard waivers are again in question as of the writing of this document.
Construction Equipment Fuel-Efficiency Standard
USEPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000. A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements, which are contained in 40 CFR Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068 (originally adopted in 69 Federal Register 38958 [June 29, 2004] and most recently updated in 2014 [79 Federal Register 46356]). Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code Section 39000 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the State has developed the CAAQS, which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS.
Table 4.2-2 lists the current State standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.
California Air Toxics Program
A TAC is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs may result in long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure.
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807: Health and Safety Code Sections 39650–39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase.
The second step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process.
The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk.
Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly Bill) was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of significant risks, and reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. The Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill (SB) 25 (Chapter 731, Escutia, Statutes of 1999), focuses on children's exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air quality standards from a children's health perspective, evaluate the Statewide air quality monitoring network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect children's health.
State Implementation Plan
The SIP is a collection of documents that set forth the State’s strategies for achieving the AAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, and permitting), district rules, State regulations, and federal controls. CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under State law. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 52.220.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-14
The 2022 Santa Barbara County Ozone Plan is the SIP for Santa Barbara County. The 2022 Ozone Plan (2022 Plan) accommodates growth by projecting the growth in emissions based on different indicators. For example, population forecasts adopted by SCCAB are used to forecast population- related emissions. Through the planning process, emissions growth is offset by basin-wide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.
In addition, the following California Code of Regulations would be applicable to the 2045 General Plan:
Engine Idling. In accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location. Emission Standards. In accordance with Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.
California Advanced Clean Cars Program
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost- effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allows California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the U.S. EPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules have been fully implemented, and new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 32, and Assembly Bill 1279)
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO 2e. The
Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.
Senate Bill (SB) 32, signed into law on September 8, 2016, extends AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below).
The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.
Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of 6 MT CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).
AB 1279, “The California Climate Crisis Act,” was passed on September 16, 2022, and declares the State would achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. In addition, the bill states that the State would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update has been prepared to assess the progress towards the 2030 target as well as to outline a plan to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long- term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022).
Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) adopted the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS to demonstrate that the SBCAG region would achieve emissions reductions consistent with targets set forth by SB 375.
Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statues of 2016) requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-16
SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.
Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the former Governor Brown issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.
Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 (Senate Bill 1020) Adopted on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 creates clean electricity targets for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of retail sale electricity by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, 100 percent by 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by 2035. This bill shall not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and shall not allow resource shuffling.
California Building Standards Code
The CEC first adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards is referred to as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code and was developed to help the State achieve its GHG reduction goals under HSC Division 25.5 (e.g., AB 32) by codifying standards for reducing building-related energy, water, and resource demand, which in turn reduces GHG emissions from energy, water, and resource demand.
The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute for or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for new residential and non- residential buildings. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Title 24 Standards, which go into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards continue to improve upon the previous (2019) Title 24 standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential buildings (CEC 2022a). The 2022 Title 24 Standards “build on California’s technology innovations, encouraging energy efficient approaches to encourage building decarbonization, emphasizing in particular on heat pumps for space heating and water heating. This set of Energy Codes also extends the benefits of photovoltaic and battery storage systems and other demand flexible technology to work in combinations with heat pumps to enable California buildings to be responsive to climate change.
This Energy code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. This update provides crucial steps in the state’s progress toward 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by midcentury” (CEC 2022b). The 2022 Energy Code is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by 10 MMT of CO
2e over the next 30 years and result in approximately 1.5 billion dollars in consumer savings (CEC 2022c). Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process. c. Local Regulations
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
As the local air quality management agency, the SBCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as non- attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts described in Section 2.1, Environmental and Regulatory Setting, are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition.
Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (2002) was the first plan prepared by SBCAPCD and established specific planning requirements to maintain the State one-hour O
3 standard. In 2006, CARB revised the CAAQS and added an 8-hour average to the O3 standard. Both components of the standard must now be met before CARB can designate an area to be in attainment. The most recent 2022 Ozone Plan was adopted by SBCAPCD in December 2022 and was the seventh update to the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The 2022 Ozone Plan addresses the State O 3 standards only because SBCAPCD is designated “attainment” for the federal 8-hour O3 standards, including the most recent standard of 0.070 ppm promulgated by the United States EPA in 2015.
To minimize potential impacts from the plan emissions, the SBCAPCD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of Projects. Rules and regulations relevant to the plan include the following:
Rule 345 (Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities). This rule establishes fugitive dust control requirements for any activity associated with construction or demolition of a structure or structures.
Rule 323.1 (Architectural Coatings). This rule establishes volatile organic content limits for architectural coatings that are manufactured, blended, repackaged, supplied, sold, or offered for sale within the SBCAPCD. Rule 323.1 limits the volatile organic content to 50 grams per liter for flat coatings and 100 grams per liter for nonflat coatings and traffic marking coatings.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-18
Rule 329 (Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials). This rule establishes ROC content limits pertaining to the manufacture, application, and sale of cutback and emulsified asphalt materials for paving, construction, and maintenance of streets, highways, parking lots, and driveways.
SBCAG Connected 2050 RTP/SCS
The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS was adopted by Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) in 2021 and updated in April 2025, and it builds upon the goals, policies, and forecasts of preceding plans. The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS demonstrates that the SBCAG region would achieve emissions reductions consistent with targets set forth by SB 375. GHG reductions achieved through the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS would result in corresponding reductions in energy consumption in the region. The Connected 2050 RTP/SCS sets forth goals and objectives related to mixed‐use development and the jobs‐housing balance by allotting more housing to the southern portion of Santa Barbara County, as well as incorporating region-specific analysis of environmental justice indicators. Policies in the Connected 2050 RTP/SCS applicable to the plan include meeting SB 375 requirements, promoting renewable energy, and promoting alternative transportation (SBCAG 2025).
City of Santa Maria
The City of Santa Maria has not adopted a qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). Therefore, this analysis does not utilize the tiering and streamlining provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(2) in evaluating the significance of the plan’s impacts related to GHG emissions.
4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Air Quality Methodology
The assessment of potential environmental impacts related to air quality is based on a review of regional air quality plans and data within the plan. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a citywide assessment of the plan. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the land use assumptions used in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which represent the net new uses from the 2045 General Plan Update as detailed under Section 2.6.5 of the Project Description:
Table 4.2-5 CalEEMod Land Use Assumptions
Land Use Categories New Uses Reduction in Uses
Residential +16,140 units –
Mixed-Use (assumed to be office uses in CalEEMod) +452 ac – Industrial +7 ac –
Recreational Parks +33 ac –
Planned Future Development (assumed to be office uses in CalEEMod) +1,021 1,012 ac – Commercial – -463 ac
N/A = not applicable; ac = acres
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
Construction Emissions
Construction-related emissions are temporary but may still cause adverse air quality impacts.
Construction of development associated with the 2045 General Plan Update would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances. At this time, there is not sufficient detail to allow project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Rather, construction impacts for the 2045 General Plan Update are discussed qualitatively.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. CalEEMod uses default and project-specific information, including the plan’s land uses, square footage for different uses (e.g., multi-family residence, hotel, etc.), and location, to estimate the plan’s operational emissions. Land use assumptions are included in Table 4.2-5.
Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile source emissions, energy emissions, and area source emissions. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption for space and water heating. The energy use estimates account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). This is a conservative assumption since the energy use estimates do not account for potential energy efficiency measures required by the subsequent Title 24 update in 2022, as well as anticipated future updates. Mobile source emissions were estimated using vehicle activity data presented in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic.
Table 4.2-6 shows the 2045 General Plan Update’s VMT per capita for 2045. Annual VMT were estimated by multiplying the daily VMT per household by the projected increase of 16,140 residential units and by 365 days per year. Similarly, daily VMT per employee was multiplied by the projected increase of 23,750 employees and by 365 days to estimate annual employee-related VMT.
This approach represents a conservative assumption, as it applies daily VMT rates uniformly across all days of the year, without accounting for reduced travel on weekends or holidays.
Table 4.2-6 Plan 2045 VMT
Activity VMT per Household VMT per Employee
VMT 47.6 9.8
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: Santa Maria Travel Demand Model, GHD, June 2025.
Air Quality Significance Thresholds
This analysis follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (2022a). Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, air quality impacts related to a project would be significant if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard; City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-20
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
According to the SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, a project would have a significant air quality impact on the environment if operation of the project would:
a) Emit from all project sources (both stationary and mobile) less than 240 pounds per day of ROC; b) Emit from all project sources (both stationary and mobile) less than 240 pounds per day of NO X;
c) Emit from all project sources (both stationary and mobile) less than 80 pounds per day of PM10; d) Emit less than 25 pounds per day of ROC from motor vehicle trips only; e) Emit less than 25 pounds per day of NOX from motor vehicle trips only; and f) Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard (except ozone); or
g) Not exceed the public notification health risk thresholds adopted by the SBCAPCD of 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk or a Hazard Index of more than 1.0 for non-cancer risk; or
h) Be consistent with the latest adopted in federal and State air quality plans for Santa Barbara County
The SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents state that, due to the relatively low background ambient CO levels in Santa Barbara County, localized CO impacts associated with congested intersections are not expected to exceed the CO health-related air quality standards. As such, CO hotspot analyses are not required.
Plan Consistency
Consistency with land use and population forecasts in local and regional plans, including the 2022 Ozone Plan (previously known as the Clean Air Plan), is required under CEQA for all projects.
The 2022 Ozone Plan relies primarily on the land use and population projections provided by SBCAG and CARB on-road emissions forecast as a basis for vehicle emission forecasting (SBCAPCD 2022b).
The 2022 Ozone Plan uses SBCAG’s Countywide Regional Transportation Demand Model for on-road mobile source emissions estimates and SBCAG’s socio-economic projections contained in the most recent RTP/SCS to form the basis for some stationary and area source growth forecasts.
The SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents States that any general plan amendment that would provide for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted Ozone Plan is inconsistent with the Ozone Plan and may have a significant impact on air quality (SBCAPCD 2022a).
Toxic Air Contaminants
The USEPA considers those pollutants that could cause cancer risks between one in 10,000 (1.0 x 10 4) and one in one million (1.0 x 10-6) for risk management. Proposition 65 (California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6), enacted in 1986, prohibits a person in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical that has been listed as known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
warning. For a chemical that is listed as a carcinogen, the “no significant risk” level under Proposition 65 is defined as the level that is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals (1.0 x 10
-5). The SBCAPCD recommends the use of this risk level (also reportable as 10 in one million) as the significance threshold for TACs. The SBCAPCD also recommends that the non-carcinogenic hazards of TACs should not exceed a hazard index (the summation of the hazard quotients for all chemicals to which an individual would be exposed) of 1.0 for either chronic or acute effects (SBCAPCD 2022a).
GHG Methodology
GHG emissions result from both direct and indirect sources. Direct emissions include emissions from fuel combustion in vehicles and natural gas combustion from stationary sources. Indirect sources include off-site emissions occurring as a result of electricity and water consumption and solid waste.
In addition, construction activities would result in direct and indirect emissions. Details for mobile source, energy source, and area source inputs included in the modeling of GHG emissions are provided above under Air Quality Methodology.
As discussed above, the 2045 General Plan Update is analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS.
GHG Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines States that a project may have a significant adverse impact if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).
According to the CEQA Guidelines, projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the proposed project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.
This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals [AEP] (2016) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.
The City of Santa Maria has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update is evaluated based on consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-22
b. Projects Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact AQGHG-1 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN NEW EMISSIONS THAT MAY EXCEED THE 2022 OZONE PLAN’S DIRECT AND INDIRECT EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE COUNTY. AS A RESULT, THE PLAN WOULD CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2022 OZONE PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
The SBCAPCD Guidelines State that a project is consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan (previously known as the Clean Air Plan) if its direct and indirect emissions have been accounted for in the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecast assumptions, and if it would incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBCAPCD during construction activities.
Emissions Forecast Assumptions
The 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County as a whole is reliant on population projections provided by the SBCAG. SBCAG generates population projections based on local General Plans. In this case, SBCAG utilized population projections contained in the existing City of Santa Maria General Plan, which are based on existing and anticipated land uses in the city.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Effects Found Not to be Significant, the proposed plan would add 16,140 additional residential units leading to an increase of approximately 58,265 new residents.3 This estimate is based on the California Department of Finance’s population estimates, which identified the average persons per household in Santa Maria as 3.61 in 2024 (DOF 2024) and assumes full occupancy of residential units at this rate. Actual population growth may be lower. According to the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast 2050 for Santa Barbara County, the population of Santa Maria is expected to increase by 34,600 residents by 2050. The Plan’s anticipated addition of roughly 58,265 residents by the year 2045 would exceed SBCAG’s projection by roughly 23,665 residents or 31 percent. Although SBCAG would update their growth projections to be consistent with the 2045 General Plan Update during the next planning cycle, the level of population growth and associated development anticipated under the 2045 General Plan Update would substantially exceed the existing SBCAG population forecasts. In addition, as discussed below under Impact AQGHG-2, the 2045 General Plan Update would exceed SBCAPCD’s construction and operational criteria pollutant thresholds, which represents a conflict with the goals and measures outlined in the 2022 Ozone Plan. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Fugitive Dust Control Measures
Pursuant to SBCAPCD Guidelines to be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan, a project must incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBCAPCD during construction activities. The 2045 General Plan Update contains the following policy and action that would require fugitive dust control measures and the use of SBCACPD’s short-term construction emissions guidelines.
3 This calculation represents a conservative analysis in which every potential residential unit (16,140 as described in Section 2.6.5, Proposed 2045 General Plan Buildout) is occupied at the full potential persons per household rate.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
Policy COS-5.3: Fugitive Dust Emissions. Mitigate air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction and demolition activities by requiring the use of best management practices consistent with SBCAPCD Guidelines regarding fugitive dust control.
Action COS 5.3.1: Utilize SBCAPCD’s short-term construction emissions guidelines to determine levels of significance for construction-related emissions.
Policies included in the 2045 General Plan Update would ensure that future development facilitated by the plan would comply with SBCAPCD’s standard fugitive dust control measures, ensuring consistency with this component of the 2022 Ozone Plan.
Mitigation Measures
The 2045 General Plan Update includes policies which are intended to achieve consistency with the 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County. However, there is no set of General Plan policies or mitigation measures that could feasibly achieve consistency with SBCAG’s population forecasts or reduce emissions in a manner that would be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County as a whole.
Significance After Mitigation
Policies included in the 2045 General Plan Update would ensure that future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would comply with SBCAPCD’s standard fugitive dust control measures. However, because the 2045 General Plan Update would substantially exceed SBCAG’s population forecasts and would result in new emissions that could exceed 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the County as a whole, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQGHG-2 THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY
CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ALL CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH THE PLAN REGION IS IN NON- ATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD. EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE AQGHG-2, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
Construction
Construction of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update may involve activities that result in air pollutant emissions. Construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on- site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROC and NO
X emissions, generated by construction equipment, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-24
whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts.
SBCAPCD does not currently have quantitative thresholds of significance for plan-level construction that would apply to the 2045 General Plan Update. However, CEQA requires that the short-term impacts such as exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generation during grading be analyzed. If an individual project’s construction emissions fall below the project-level thresholds, the plan’s impacts on regional air quality would be individually and cumulatively less than significant. According to SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, it recommends quantification of construction-related emissions and suggests a 25 tons per year threshold for ROC or NO
X as a guideline for determining the significance of construction impacts (SBCAPCD 2022a). This is a limit that requires offsets if the construction activity is for a project that requires SBCAPCD permits and also provides guidance for other construction projects involving standard grading and building activities. In addition, standard dust control measures must be implemented for any discretionary project involving earthmoving activities, regardless of size or duration. According to the SBCAPCD, proper implementation of these required measures reduces fugitive dust emissions to a level that is less than significant (SBCAPCD 2022a).
Construction of development envisioned under the 2045 General Plan Update would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution concentrations or air quality nuisances. To promote clean air quality to protect public health and safety and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the 2045 General Plan Update includes Policies COS-5.1 through 5.3 and associated actions which would minimize emissions of air contaminants associated with buildout of the 2045 General Plan Update. These policies are listed below:
Policy COS-5.1: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District policies. Ensure consistency between the City and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) air quality plans and regulations. Continue to enforce the standards and regulations set by the SBCAPCD.
Action COS-5.1.1: Continue to refer projects requiring an Air Pollution Control District (APCD) permit to the SBCAPCD and require ACPD permit approval.
Action COS-5.1.2: Evaluate potential impacts of proposed development on air quality during the development and environmental review process, using Air Pollution Control District (APCD) threshold standards as guidelines
Action COS-5.1.3: Ensure new development complies with the Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program (CMP), Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), Ozone Plan, and other relevant regulations during the development and environmental review process.
Policy COS-5.2: Agricultural air pollutant emissions. Reduce air pollutant emissions associated with agricultural uses.
Action COS-5.2.1: Work with agricultural operators located within City limits and in adjacent unincorporated areas to encourage the adoption of farming practices that minimize dust, consistent with the Santa Barbara County’s dust control measures, including limiting plowing, disking, mowing, and tilling when soil is dry and winds are high, and using surface coverings or cover crops to reduce wind erosion and stabilize soil.
Action COS-5.2.2: Coordinate with SBCAPCD to report illegal burnings and enforce SBCAPCD regulations pertaining to agricultural burnings.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-25
Action COS-5.2.3: Collaborate with SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner's Office to monitor pesticide residues in the air and enforce pesticide use and storage regulations.
Action COS-5.2.4: Update the Municipal Code to establish a minimum buffer requirement between agricultural uses, including agricultural supply businesses, and development based on the type of use. Sensitive land uses, including residential uses, schools, day cares, senior homes, and hospitals, shall require the largest buffer distance from agricultural and related uses.
Action COS-5.2.5: Update the Municipal Code to require the use of green walls or vegetation barriers in combination with minimum buffers to provide a physical barrier between agricultural and sensitive uses.
Policy COS-5.3: Fugitive dust emissions. Mitigate air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction and demolition activities by requiring the use of best management practices consistent with SBCAPCD Guidelines regarding fugitive dust control.
Action COS-5.3.1: Utilize SBCAPCD’s short-term construction emissions guidelines to determine levels of significance for construction-related emissions While consistency with SBCAPCD’s Guidelines through implementation of fugitive dust control
measures would reduce impacts from construction emissions to less than significant for the majority of projects, specific project-level details are unknown at this level of planning and individual projects may still exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Operation
Reasonably expected future development from the 2045 General Plan Update would generate long- term regional air pollutant emissions, which would result from mobile sources (motor vehicle exhaust) and area sources, such as consumer products and natural gas combustion. Emissions from motor vehicle exhaust were estimated using VMT data for the 2045 General Plan Update (2045).
The impact analysis is based on net new uses within the city as detailed in Section 2, Project Description.
Operation of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). The 2045 General Plan Update would increase residential, office, industrial, and recreational land uses under 2045 buildout, and would decrease commercial uses under 2045 buildout. Operational emissions were based on the plan characteristics described in Section 2, Project Description, and the new and reduced land uses categories proposed by the plan as compared to the existing City land use designations (Table 4.2-5). In addition, VMT per capita data presented in Table 4.2-6 were used to generate estimates of annual VMT.
Table 4.2-7 shows the net difference in operational emissions by subtracting net new uses by net reduction in uses. As shown in Table 4.2-7, the net new emissions would exceed SBCAPCD thresholds for all sources and mobile sources. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-26
Table 4.2-7 Estimated Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Emissions Source ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
New Uses
Mobile 55 94 1,314 5 615 157
Area 2,491 32 3,724 <1 5 4
Energy 55 493 372 3 38 38
Total 2,601 619 5,410 8 658 199
Reduction in Uses
Mobile 4 6 84 <1 39 10
Area 639 7 877 <1 9 9
Energy 14 122 103 1 9 9
Total 657 135 1,064 1 57 28
Net New Emissions
Net New Emissions 1,944 484 4,346 7 601 171
Threshold (area + energy + mobile) 240 240 N/A N/A 80 N/A Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A
Threshold (mobile only) 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
ROC = reactive organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix B for modeling results. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
Mitigation Measures
AQGHG-2 Project-Level Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation The City shall require, where it is determined as necessary, applicants for future discretionary development projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update to prepare a project-specific air quality analysis in accordance with SBCAPCD Environmental Review Guidelines. The analysis shall quantify construction and operational emissions and compare estimated emissions to the SBCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. If the analysis determines that emissions would exceed any of the applicable thresholds, the project applicant shall implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions to below the thresholds. All mitigation measures shall be documented and verified by the lead agency prior to project approval or issuance of grading/building permits.
Significance After Mitigation
While consistency with SBCAPCD’s Guidelines through implementation of fugitive dust control measures would reduce impacts from construction emissions to less than significant for the majority of projects, specific project-level details are unknown at this level of planning and individual projects may still exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-2 would require project-specific air quality analyses and incorporation of mitigation for future development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-27
However, because the nature and intensity of future projects are not known at this time, construction and operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQGHG-3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECTS LASTING LONGER THAN TWO MONTHS OR LOCATED WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS COULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. HOWEVER, WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE AQGHG-3, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction
Construction-related activities associated with new development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update would result in DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment associated with site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, clearing), building construction, and other construction activities. DPM is identified as a TAC by CARB. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2025a) and is therefore the focus of this analysis.
Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Future construction would occur over approximately 20 years (assuming a buildout year of 2045), but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur in less than one year for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is impossible to quantify risk without identified specific project details and locations.
The extent of DPM emissions from any individual construction project depend upon the following factors: (1) the amount of disturbed soils; (2) the length of disturbance time; (3) whether existing structures are demolished; (4) whether excavation is involved; and (5) whether transporting excavated materials off site is necessary. DPM emissions would be reduced during the other phases of individual project construction because activities such as building construction and architectural coating require less diesel-fueled construction equipment.
SBCAPCD has not established plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions, and SBCAPCD CEQA guidance does not require preparation of a health risk assessment for short-term construction emissions. At this time, development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update does not have sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) to allow for project-level analysis given that project-level details are not currently available for future individual development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. As a result, it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts that could occur as a result of development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update. In addition, SBCAPCD does not recommend project-level emissions thresholds for construction activity. Therefore, a qualitative approach to characterizing construction-related air emissions has been employed for this analysis.
According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, which could result in potentially significant health risk impacts.
SBCAPCD recommends diesel equipment meeting the CARB Tier 3 or higher emission standards, which results in substantially lower TAC emissions than older construction equipment, be used in place of older construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible (SBCAPCD 2022a). As a City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-28
result, construction projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, that have construction durations longer than two months, and are larger than single-family residences, ADUs, or duplexes could result in potentially significant health risk impacts if construction equipment does not meet CARB Tier 3 or higher for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3.
Operation
Development facilitated by the plan could accommodate a net increase of approximately 16,140 additional residential units and 23,750 new jobs in Santa Maria. CARB’s guidelines do not designate residential uses as land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions. As a result, this analysis considers quantities of hazardous TACs that could be generated by new residential uses (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) as below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Development facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update in accordance with land use and zoning regulations would not site land uses that typically generate TACs near sensitive receptors. Additionally, new commercial, retail, or industrial uses that may include a new stationary TAC source, such as an emergency generator, the new stationary source would be required to apply for a permit-to-operate from SBCAPCD. The permitting process would ensure that the potential new stationary source would not present a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update would not result in exposure of existing sensitive receptors to significant carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants and would be consistent with CARB and SBCAPCD guidelines.
To minimize health risks to sensitive receptors located near roadways, the 2045 General Plan Update includes the following policies that aim to improve air quality and minimize exposure to TAC:
Policy COS-6.2: Vehicle emissions reduction. Reduce vehicle-generated air pollution and GHG emissions by expanding active transportation opportunities. Policy COS-6.3: City vehicle fleet electrification. Transition the City’s vehicle fleet to electric/zero-emission vehicles.
Implementation of these policies would minimize the potential for sensitive receptors in the plan area to be exposed to significant health risks associated with roadway traffic or other operational sources of TACs that may result from new development under the 2045 General Plan Update.
Mitigation Measures
AQGHG-3 Construction Equipment Exhaust Control Measures For individual discretionary and ministerial residential projects facilitated by the 2045 General Plan Update that would develop three or more units; would involve demolition, mass grading, or excavation and trenching phases longer than two months; and would be located within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, the City shall enforce a project specific Condition of Approval requiring the following: off-road heavy-duty diesel engines to meet CARB-certified Tier 3 or higher emission standards or employ CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters to the extent that this equipment is commercially available. “Commercially available” shall be defined as the availability of required equipment in geographic proximity to the project site and within a reasonable timeframe relative to critical path construction timing. If Tier 3 or higher emission standard equipment or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available, documentation shall be provided by the
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-29
Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQGHG-4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD
NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS THAT COULD AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR EXPOSE FUTURE RESIDENTS TO ODORS THAT WOULD PRODUCE A PUBLIC NUISANCE OR HAZARD. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The occurrence and severity of objectionable odors depend on a number of factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the receiving location. Although objectionable odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be perceived as a nuisance, cause distress among the public, and result in citizen complaints.
The 2045 General Plan Update would facilitate the development of new housing units, which are odor-sensitive receptors, in areas with existing residential and commercial land uses. Construction activities for development forecasted in accordance with the 2045 General Plan Update may produce temporary odors. Examples of potential odors produced by construction activities include concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from construction equipment tailpipes and reactive organic gases/compounds from architectural coatings. Such odors generally disperse rapidly from Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
project applicant to the City stating that Tier 3 equipment or higher emission standard or Level 3 diesel particulate filters are not commercially available with supporting evidence from the contractor. If CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters are utilized, they shall be kept in working order and maintained in operable condition according to manufacturer’s specifications, as applicable.
a. Off-road diesel equipment 25 horsepower (hp) or greater shall be equipped with engines compliance with, or certified to meet or exceed, the California Air Resources Board’s Tier 3 Final engine emissions standards. Where available, and as determined on a project-by- project basis, the use of Tier 4 or zero-emission equipment shall be utilized. Where feasible, off-road construction equipment should be either Tier-4 or zero-emission.
Alternative/renewable fuels such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or propane should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible when zero-emission is not available. Commitments to Tier 3, Tier 4 and/or zero-emission equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts; successful contractors shall demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to ground-disturbing and construction activities.
b. All portable generators shall be powered by a source other than diesel fuel or gasoline (i.e. battery, natural gas, propane etc.).
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 would reduce potential residual health risk impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of DPM and TACs.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQGHG-3 would require construction projects that may be a substantial source of health risk exposure to sensitive receptors to utilize Tier 3 equipment or higher emission standard or Level 3 diesel particulate filters to the maximum extent feasible align with the District’s current recommendations for control of diesel exhaust and minimization of construction-related TAC exposure impacts, which reduce potential construction-related TACs exposure impacts to a less than significant level.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-30
individual project sites, occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people, and would be limited to the temporary construction period.
The SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (2022) states that certain projects have the potential to cause significant odor impacts because of the nature of their operation and their location. Examples include fast food restaurants, bakeries, and coffee roasting facilities. In addition, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Although the annexation area east of the city limits would be located in proximity to agricultural operations, such operations are not typically associated with the generation of substantial or frequent odors.
Agricultural activities in the region primarily involve crop cultivation and other practices that do not constitute significant odor sources under typical operating conditions. Thus, the potential for odor- related impacts on future development within the annexation area is considered minimal. The 2045 General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or expose future residents to odor in concentrations that would produce a public nuisance or hazard. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required because this impact would be less than significant.
Threshold 5: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact AQGHG-5 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD
GENERATE GHG EMISSIONS THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONFLICT
WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
As discussed above under Section 4.2.3(a), Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the City of Santa Maria has not adopted a quantitative significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update is evaluated based on consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS. Operational emissions are provided for informational purposes. Construction emissions are not provided as specific individual project-level details are unknown at this level of planning.
The principal State GHG reduction plans and policies are AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 identifies a State-wide target of net-zero GHG emissions by 2045 and a goal of reducing GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.
The latest iteration of the Scoping Plan is the 2022 Scoping Plan, which focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.
The 2045 General Plan Update would be generally consistent with these goals since future development would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-31
Efficiency Energy Standards. Additionally, the 2045 General Plan Update includes the following goal, policies, and actions intended to reduce GHG emissions from building energy use.
Goal COS-6: Greenhouse gas emissions. The city is strives to be carbon-neutral.
Policy COS-6.1: GHG reduction strategy. Develop and implement a citywide GHG reduction and monitoring strategy.
Action COS-6.1.1: Establish City GHG emissions reduction targets that are consistent with sState-mandated targets of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
Action COS-6.1.2: Develop a sustainability plan or similar document that outlines how the City will achieve its GHG reduction targets. Integrate City-led GHG reduction strategies with regional efforts.
Policy COS-6.4: Energy conservation programs. Promote energy conservation through public awareness programs.
Action COS-6.4.1: Coordinate with the Tri-County Regional Energy Network (3C-REN) to increase awareness of local incentives for improving energy efficiency for homeowners.
Action COS-6.4.2: Identify and pursue funding to create a program offering home energy audits to help property owners identify updates to increase energy efficiency and funding assistance for home retrofits.
Future development would also be served by Southern California Edison Pacific Gas and Electric or Central Coast Community Energy, both of which are required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. Furthermore, development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with the State’s recycling and composting requirements for commercial businesses under AB 341, which requires businesses generating four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week to recycle, and AB 1826, which requires businesses generating two or more cubic yards of solid waste per week to recycle organic waste. Compliance with these state laws would maximize the plan’s recycling and solid waste diversion.
Priority GHG reduction strategies outlined in the Scoping Plan include VMT reduction measures aimed at improving and increasing access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, and microtransit alternatives. The following 2045 General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions would reduce GHG emissions.
Goal COS-6: Greenhouse gas emissions. The city is strives to be carbon-neutral.
Policy COS-6.1: GHG reduction strategy. Develop and implement a citywide GHG reduction and monitoring strategy.
Action COS-6.1.1: Establish City GHG emissions reduction targets that are consistent with sState-mandated targets of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
Action COS-6.1.2: Develop a sustainability plan or similar document that outlines how the City will achieve its GHG reduction targets. Integrate City-led GHG reduction strategies with regional efforts.
City of Santa Maria
2045 General Plan Update
4.2-32
Policy COS-6.2: Vehicle emissions reduction. Reduce vehicle-generated air pollution and GHG emissions by expanding active transportation opportunities.
Policy COS-6.3: City vehicle fleet electrification. Transition the City’s vehicle fleet to electric/zero-emission vehicles.
Action COS-6.3.1: Amend the City's Capital Improvement Plan to incorporate the replacement of high-mileage fleet vehicles with clean fuel vehicles.
Action COS-6.3.2: Pursue sState and federal grants for transitioning City vehicles to clean fuel sources and installing electric vehicle charging stations at City facilities.
Policies listed in Section 4.7, Transportation, would encourage active transportation and transit use in accordance with the 2022 Scoping Plan. However, as discussed under Impact TRA-2, the 2045 General Plan Update would not meet the 17 percent VMT reduction target set by CARB for the SBCAG region. As such, the forecasted VMT would not be consistent with climate goals established in the 2050 RTP/SCS.
As demonstrated above, the goal, policies, and actions provided in the 2045 General Plan Update to reduce GHG emissions from building use are consistent with measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan aimed at achieving the same thing. However, the 2045 General Plan Update would not reduce GHG emissions from vehicle use in a sufficiently to meet the 17 percent VMT reduction target established by CARB for the SBCAG region in the 2050 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the 2045 General Plan Update would conflict with the reduction of GHG emissions related to vehicle use goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan.
SBCAG has incorporated a sustainable community strategy into the 2050 RTP/SCS, which is designed to help the region achieve its SB 375 GHG emissions reduction target. The 2050 RTP/SCS demonstrates that the SBCAG region would achieve its regional emissions reduction targets for the 2020 and 2035 target years.
Table 4.2-8 Plan Consistency with the SBCAG 2050 RTP/SCS Policies Plan Consistency
Policy 1.1: Land Use
The planning, construction, and operation of
transportation facilities shall be coordinated with local land use planning and should encourage local agencies to:
1. Make land use decisions that adequately address
regional transportation issues and are consistent with
the RTP-SCS.
2. Promote better balance of jobs and housing to reduce long-distance commuting by means of traditional land
use zoning, infill development, and other,
unconventional land use tools, such as employer-
sponsored housing programs, economic development
programs, commercial growth management
ordinances, average unit size ordinances and parking
pricing policies.
3. Plan for transit-oriented development consistent with the RTP-SCS by:
a. Concentrating residences and commercial centers
in urban areas near rail stations, transit centers
and along transit development corridors.
Consistent: The 2045 General Plan Update would facilitate the development of 16,140 net new residential units in
infill and urbanized areas in proximity to services and transit which would encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of alternative transportation. The 2045 General Plan Update would also generate 23,750 net new jobs which
would improve the balance of jobs and housing and
reduce long-distance commuting.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-33
Policies Plan Consistency
b. Designing and building “complete streets” serving
all transportation modes that connect high-usage
origins and destinations.
4. Preserve open space, agricultural land and sensitive biological areas.
5. Identify, minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts and, in particular, require mitigation of traffic impacts of new land development through on-site and
related off-site improvements for all modes of
transportation, including incentives to encourage the
use of alternative transportation modes.
6. Dissuade siting of new development in high-fire risk areas by means such as ensuring insurability and
redundancy of ingress and egress.
Policy 1.2: Air Quality
Transportation planning and projects shall be designed to:
1. Lead to reductions in greenhouse gas and criteria
pollutant emissions, consistent with the air quality
goals of the region, including targets for greenhouse
gas emissions from passenger vehicles in 2020 and
2035 as required by Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).
2. Be in conformity with the Air Pollution Control District Ozone Plan and the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
as required by the federal Clean Air Act.
Inconsistent: Future development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards
and would also be served by Southern California Edison
Pacific Gas and Electric or Central Coast Community
Energy, both of which are required to increase its
renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100
targets. In addition, as discussed under Impact AQGHG-1, the 2045 General Plan Update would be consistent with
the 2022 Ozone Plan, and would adhere to SBAPCD Rules
323.1, 329, and 345. Nonetheless, since specific project- level information is currently unknown, there is no
guarantee the 2045 General Plan Update would be
consistent with State legislation and the 2022 Scoping Plan with goals to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
Policy 1.3: Alternative Fuels and Energy
Transportation planning and projects shall:
1. Encourage the use of alternative fuels, and the
application of advanced transportation and energy
technologies to reduce vehicular emission production
and energy consumption.
2. Promote renewable energy and energy conservation,
consistent with applicable federal, State, and local
energy programs, goals, and objectives.