Santa Maria City Council
May 5, 2026

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 1 of 37

CITY OF SANTA MARIA 5.a

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MARCH 4, 2026

Attachment J. Planning Commission Staff Report 3-4-26.docx

Property Location: Citywide

The City of Santa Maria Planning Commission will review and consider for recommendation to City Council, certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adoption of the Santa Maria 2045 General Pl an including initiation of proceedings to amend the City’s Sphere of Influence and annex the territory designated “Planned Annexation”, and approval of a Zoning Map Amendment repealing and reenacting the City of Santa Maria Official Zoning Map for consistency with the General Plan.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION:

Take the following actions:

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

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

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

DISCUSSION
The City of Santa Maria’s General Plan is a comprehensive document that establishes the community’s vision and provides a framework that will guide decisions on topics such as growth, economic development, and land use through the planning horizon year of 2045. The plan includes goals, policies, and implementation actions in chapters called Elements. The Santa Maria 2045 General Plan supersedes and replaces the City’s

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 2 of 37

current General Plan and has been substantially updated to address local conditions, community priorities and goals, and State law.

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

1. Grower Shipper Association, dated February 18, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservation and Open Space Element

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

2. “Policy COS-2.1: Agricultural
preservation. Collaborate with Santa
Barbara County and local landowners to
preserve existing agricultural uses on
lands not proposed for future
development, including croplands and
rangelands. Action COS-2.1.1: During
review of projects that would alter or
convert existing agricultural uses,
balance state and regional efforts to
preserve existing agricultural uses,
including the Santa Barbara County
Right to Farm Ordinance, clustering of
urban land uses/development, and
transfer of development rights —with
Recommend changes to Action COS1.3.1 as
proposed.

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

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

other factors. These include providing
adequate housing, achieving a jobs-
housing balance, supporting economic
sustainability, and advancing other City
interests.” Inducing or placing
incompatible uses, such as sensitives
sites, residential uses, and DACs into
and near agricultural production and
support areas will result in predictable
land use conflicts and cascading
impacts to both agricultural operations
and residents. Please refer to the
comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

3. “Action COS-2.1.2: To the extent
feasible, support the establishment of
agricultural conservation easements on
land within the City’s Sphere of Influence
that is zoned for agriculture and
designated as Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance,
and Unique Farmland by initiating
discussions with property owners on
eligible sites and providing education and
technical assistance to interested
owners.” A compact urban footprint and
prudent land use planning would be
most beneficial to agricultural resources,
conservation, and open space, rather
than conservation easements or technical
assistance from the City for agricultural
lands within the City’s Sphere of
Influence.

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

5. “Action COS-2.2.1: Support local
agricultural operators to encourage the
continued use and adoption of best
management practices that enhance soil

Recommend deleting Action COS -2.1.2. Area
within the City’s limits and SOI is not zoned for
agriculture and there are no proposed changes
to land use designations or zoning to add
agricultural zoning designations to property
within the City’s limits or in the SOI.

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

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

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 5 of 37

quality, protect plant health, conserve
water, and reduce soil erosion, including:
• Integrated pest management and
reduction of chemical pesticide use
• Rotational grazing and crop rotation to
enhance soil health and biodiversity •
Agroforestry • Composting” While we
also support the advancement of best
management practices, these comments
are overly prescriptive, not reasonably
feasible for the City to support, not
applicable to agriculture in Santa Maria,
and/or would compromise the food safety
and marketability of the fr esh produce
grown in and near the City.

6. “Policy COS-5.2: Agricultural air pollutant
emissions. Reduce air pollutant
emissions associated with agricultural
uses. Action COS -5.2.1: Work with
agricultural operators located within City
limits and in adjacent unincorporated
areas to encourage the adoption of
farming practices that minimize dust,
consistent with the Santa Barbara
County’s dust control measures. These
practices include limiting plowing,
disking, mowing, and tilling when soil is
dry and winds are high, and using surface
coverings or cover crops to reduce wind
erosion and stabilize soil. Action COS-

5.2.2: Coordinate with SBCAPCD to
report illegal burnings and enforce
SBCAPCD regulations pertaining to
agricultural burnings. Action COS-5.2.3:

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

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

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

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

7. “Action COS-5.2.4: Update the Municipal
Code to establish a minimum buffer
requirement between agricultural uses,
including agricultural supply businesses,
and development based on the type of
use. Sensitive land uses, including
residential uses, schools, day cares,
senior homes, and hospitals, shall require
the largest buffer distance from
agricultural and related uses.” Buffers
must be placed on the new use, rather
than the existing agricultural use, and are
not a substitute for good land use
planning. Please refer to the comments
submitted by Somach Simmons & Dunn
on behalf of the Association for additional
information.

8. “Action COS-5.2.5: Update the
Municipal Code to require the use of
green walls or vegetation barriers in
combination with minimum buffers to
provide a physical barrier between
agricultural and sensitive uses.”
Industrial and commercial uses would
be the most beneficial buffers. We are
concerned about ongoing maintenance of
the vegetative areas, and the potential for
these spaces near agricultural areas to be
reservoirs for agricultural pests, diseases,
and food safety threats, which would be
detrimental to agricultural uses.

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

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

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

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

Economic Development Element

1. “Policy ECON-2.8: Annexation lands.

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

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

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

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 7 of 37

Health and Environmental Justice Element

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

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

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

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

No changes to this section are recommended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protect against potential exposure to industrial
pollution. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses
(e.g., schools, senior centers, and daycare
centers) near existing industrial, commercial,
and agricultural uses which have the potential
to Prevent industrial and commercial facilities
from exposing sensitive land uses (e.g.,
schools, playgrounds, housing, hospitals,
senior centers, and daycare centers) to result
in exposure to harmful air pollution and toxic
chemicals, especially in DACs that have
experienced disproportionate pollution
burdens, by carefully analyzing p roposed
development. and the expansion of industrial
and commercial uses

Policy HEJ -1.2 is required per Assembly Bill
(AB) 98, requiring the City to identify and
establish specific travel routes for the transport
of goods, materials, or freight for storag e,
transfer, or redistribution to safely
accommodate additional truck traffic and avoid
residential areas and concentrations of
sensitive noise receptors.

In accordance with SB 1000, the environmental
justice element, or related environmental
justice g oals, policies, and objectives
integrated in other elements, shall do all of the
following: (A) Identify objectives and policies to
reduce the unique or compounded health risks
in disadvantaged communities by means that
include, but are not limited to, the reduction of
pollution exposure, including the improvement
of air quality, and the promotion of public
facilities, food access, safe and sanitary
homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify
objectives and policies to promote civic
engagement in the public decision-making
process. (C) Identify objectives and policies
that prioritize improvements and programs that
address the needs of disadvantaged
communities. This policy and action items were
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 9 of 37

Commissioner’s Office and the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation to
enforce the County’s agricultural buffer
zones and the installation of vegetative
barriers to minimize land use conflicts;
determine buffers for proposed projects;
limit pesticide drift; and protect farmers,
workers, and residents from harms
related to agricultural uses.” Please refer
to the comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information.

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

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

Recommend revising Policy HEJ -1.8 as
proposed.

Land Use Element

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No changes to Policy LU -4.2 are
recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 11 of 37

sensitive uses, and potentially DACs into
and near working spaces, including
industries that support agriculture, and
result in predictable land use conflicts.

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

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

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

9. “Policy LU-9.3: Agricultural buffers.

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

Examples of buffers include but are not
limited to roadways, stormwater basins,
and landscaped or open space areas.”

Recommend revising Policy LU -5.3 as
proposed. It is feasible for new housing to be
located near agricultural areas provided that
adequate buffer s are planned and
implemented as a part of future specific plans
and development plans.

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

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

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

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 12 of 37

As stated previously, the uses allowed in
the buffer and the total distance will
determine whether buffers would be
helpful or make land use conflicts even
worse. For example, active
recreational uses and unmanaged
reservoirs for pests and diseases would
not be helpful mitigation measures. The
most useful approach is to exercise good
land use planning. This includes industrial
and commercial uses as potential buffers
between agriculture and residential and
sensitive uses.

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

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

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

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

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

No changes to Policy -13.1 are recommended.

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

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

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

Noise Element

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Element

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

This reference must be removed.

Furthermore, there are major technical
flaws in this argument.

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

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

3. “Policy S-3.2: Agricultural runoff
reduction. Work with the County of Santa
Barbara to reduce off-site and urban
flooding caused by agricultural runoff.

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

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

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

Support legal and technical efforts to
retain the essential functions of

Recommend making the changes outlined in
item #1.

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

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

Action S-3.6.4 was previously deleted.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 15 of 37

Twitchell Reservoir for flood control
and groundwater recharge purposes.

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

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

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

Recommend the following revision to Policy S-

8.2: Climate resilient design. Require
Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate climate -resilient
design to mitigate the impacts of climate
change.

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

See response above regarding Noise Element
#1.

Draft EIR and Alternatives
“Agricultural Resources-Project Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
“DEIR 4.1-10: “As such, future development
adjacent to agricultural land would not lead
to farmland loss due to potential conflicts
between existing farming operations and
new urban or non-agricultural uses. The
2045 General Plan Update would result in
less than significant impacts as it would not
result in the conversion of farmland to non—
agricultural uses that have not already been
evaluated in previous environmental
documents and would not result in
conflicting uses introduced adjacent to
existing farmland.”
“DEIR 4.1-13. A majority of development
facilitated by the plan would likely not
create significant impacts, particularly for
development that would be located in
urbanized areas of the city. However,
because implementation of the plan would
allow for future conversion of Important
Farmland and conflict with agricultural zoning

California Department of Conservation
currently lists several sites within the city as
either Grazing Land, Prime Farmland, or
Unique Farmland. However, these sites have
previously undergone environmental review for
the conversion of agricultural land. For
example, 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
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 16 of 37

within the annexation area, impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.”
These statements are patently false. Please
refer to the comments submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association for additional information. The
Draft EIR is woefully inadequate in its
analysis of potential impacts to and
mitigation measures to lessen potential
impacts to agriculture under the Agricultural
Resources and many other potential impact
categories as listed throughout this letter and
the comment letter submitted by Somach
Simmons & Dunn on behalf of the
Association. The individual and cumulative
impacts to agriculture-related impact
categories have not been properly
identified, analyzed, or mitigated as required
by CEQA, and must be adequately corrected
in future drafts. Although analysis of the
Bradley Lands annexation would have been
preferred by the Association, it might also
prove useful to analyze an alternative that
prioritizes infill and annexes only the portion
of lands north of Main Street and the block
immediately east of Marian Regional
Medical Center, both in the EIR and
General Plan Land Use Alternatives.
the project area to Santa Maria on November
23, 2004.

Furthermore, 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 Buf fer 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.

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 signifi cant (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 Spher e 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 potential 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 a nd Concurrent
Annexation Program in 1992. As part of the
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 17 of 37

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 urbanize d 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.

The Final EIR fully analyzes the 2045 General
Plan Update’s impacts to Agricultural
Resources and discloses that while the 2045
General Plan Update includes policies which
are intended to minimize future impacts to
agricultural lands in and around Santa Ma ria,
there is no set of General Plan policies or
mitigation measures that could feasibly reduce
the identified impact to agricultural lands in the
Planned Annexation area, should that be
annexed and developed in the future. Although
the Infill Only Alterna tive would be the
Environmentally Superior Alternative, this
alternative would not fulfill the primary
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 18 of 37

objectives of the 2045 General Plan Update,
including the provision of housing quality and
various housing choices or improving
opportunities for connect ed 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. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations addressing this
impact has been provided as Attachment E to
this report.

Letter 2: Urban Planning Concepts, Inc. dated February 13, 2026 The purpose of this letter is to provide
information regarding the Guggia/DeBernardi
property, that we refer to as Planned
Annexation Area #1, which is located within
the east side Planned Annexation Area
addressed in the General Plan Update. This
letter documents the planning work
completed to date, demonstrates consistency
with the vision and policies of the Draft
General Plan, and requests that the
Conceptual Land Use Plan and Pro ject
Description for this property be included in the
General Plan and Draft EIR record as an
example of how the properties could be
developed in the future. However, this
submittal is not a request for project approval,
annexation, or entitlement at this stage. We
respectfully request that the Planning
Commission, as part of its recommendation
on the General Plan Update and Draft EIR,
acknowledge the Conceptual Land Use Plan
and Project Description for the
Guggia/DeBernardi property as consistent
with the Draft General Plan as an appropriate
implementation framework within the
Planned Annexation Area.

This area is included within the area that is
identified as the Planned Annexation (PA) area
on the Land Use Policy Map. Any future
development of this area will not be able to
occur until after the City’s SOI has been
changed and the area annexed through the
LAFCO process. A specific plan and additional
environmental review will also be required. This
letter is noted as a part of the record for the
General Plan Update.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 19 of 37

Letter 3: Urban Planning Concepts, Inc., dated February 16, 2026 Introduction
Pictures There are too many pictures that
take up at least 80 pages of this 290-page GP
document. As suggested before, these
pictures could have been reduced and made
into a collage page. Pictures are not required
This collage for each element could repl ace
the repeated generic aerial photo that looks
like any city. The Goals and Policies section
are the most important part of the GP
Element. Request the Planning Commission
direct staff to work with the community and
consultants to revise the cover page of each
element.

Fig INT-2. All of the regional maps in this GP
must include the 1500 -acre city owned Los
Flores Park and future Landfill. It is referred
to many times, so people need to know where
it is located. All city maps should clearly note
the SMAPD boundaries. This will make it
clear to LAFCO that 2,500 acres are not
available for housing.

Fig INT-3, Page 11 - We requested that on
this map that includes the PA areas be
Identified as
PA 1 Guggia and DeBarnerdi
PA 2 Cal Giant
PA 3 the rest of the PA areas.

As noted on Page 11, We had asked that this
paragraph bullet these Planning Areas and
provide more information about each one and
what is being proposed as Pre -zoning. This
will help refer future PA’s and Specific Plans
maps that go along with them.

expanded to include a summary of the 1993
Sphere of Influence and Annexation Study
that planned the annexation of 3,000 acres
and helped the City grow from 65,000 people
to 110,000.

not used in the rest of the General Plan. Only
use the ACTION.

The photos were included in the draft General
Plan that was circulated for public review and
the City received one comment from this
commenter regarding a concern with the
number and placement of photos within the
plan. No other specific comments or concerns
regarding the photos were noted. It is common
for current General Plans to include photos
throughout, based on the element topic. No
changes are recommended.

Los Flores Park is not located within City limits
and is not identified by the City as a city park.

The Land Use Poli cy Map depicts the Santa
Maria Airport area. The Santa Maria Airport
Specific Plan identifies the type and density of
any future development in that area and is the
document to refer to regarding development in
that area.

The Land Use Policy Map identifie s the
Planned Annexation Area for future
development. The phases for build -out of this
area and the names of the areas will be
determined/developed through future review,
including through pre -zoning for the LAFCO
annexation application and process.

Information on the prior 1993 SOI and
Annexation Study is available in those specific
documents for reference and is not required to
be included in the 2045 General Plan.

Recommend change to delete the word
implementation.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 20 of 37

Land Use Element

Entrada Specific Plan (1976). This plan
needs to be retired as it is inconsiste nt with
the Objective Desing Standards, and the city
has not used this SP in years.

to the old FAR standards be deleted.

changed to SOI and annexation.

most cities are retiring. It is not consistent
with the ODS, and most high density /mixed
use projects will not meet this standard.

Delete all references in the LUE to FAR’s

Delete Residential Agricultural (RA)
designation. It has never been used in the
city. Include in all the residential Designations
JADU’s and ADU’s.

this is no longer a valid Planning Tool.

require 2.5 aces pe r 1,000 in order to be
consistent with the current park land
standard.

provision as it does not make sense. What
kind of Connection and what core of Santa
Maria? Are you asking to have pedestrian
bridges over 101???

The Entrada Specific Plan is not proposed to
be retired at this time. This is an action that the
City Council could consider in the future
through updates to the Municipal Code
following the adoption of the General Plan.

Government Code Section 65302 st ates that
the land use element shall include a statement
of the standards of population density and
building intensity recommended for the various
districts and other territory covered by the plan.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a current planning
practice that is used in General Plans to
designate the appropriate building intensity for
Commercial, Industrial and Professional Office
zones. No changes are recommended.

Recommend adding SOI to this paragraph.

See comment above regarding FAR.

The RA zone designation was not
recommended to be deleted as a part of the
Preferred Land Use Alternative selection. No
changes are recommended.

See comment above regarding FAR.

The City Council has adopted the standard of
5-acres of parks per 1,000 people. No changes
are recommended.

Policy LU -2.2 would ensure that future
developments located within the Planned
Annexation (PA) area are planned as complete
neighborhoods with multi -modal access to
adjacent developed areas that allow for multi -
modal access to the developed core area of the
City (bike paths, roads, sidewalks, for
example). This policy is flexible and intended to
allow for creativity in the design of future
developed areas.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 21 of 37

Plan and delete this Policy or revise it to refer
to the Objective Design Standards (2025)

revised to support the parking structures as it
exists.

Policy LU 3.6 is in conflict with 3.5 . need to
delete one of them.

conflicting with the main and Broadway being
designated State highway Truck Routes.

Suggest deleting it.

that 10,000= infill units will not be close to
parks, schools, etc. Suggest deleting the last
part of this sentence to be honest.

1 we agree with these actions but also need
to make sure to delete FAR requirements.

phrase…gathering places should be placed
to be protected by the wind.

See comment above regarding the Entrada
Specific Plan.

Future parking solutions within the Downtown
Specific P lan area may be considered. No
changes to Policy LU-3.5 are recommended.

Policy LU-3.5 directs the City to support parking
solutions that reduce surface parking lots within
the Downtown area to better utilize land and
promote pedestrian walkability. Poli cy LU -3.6
directs the City to continue to identify and
develop shared parking facilities within the
Downtown Specific Plan area to support future
mixed-use developments in the area. Shared
parking facilities are a method of reducing the
number of surface parking lots in the City which
is consistent with the direction in Policy LU-3.5.

No changes are recommended.

Caltrans is currently in the process of reviewing
truck routes on Main Street and Broadway and
looking at strategies with the City to implement
the Downtown Multi -modal streetscape plan.

This Action is appropriate to include in the
General Plan which is a visionary document to
the year 2045.

Policy LU -5.2: Siting of infill development.

Promote new infill housing in areas that are
underutilized and in close proximity to parks,
recreation, public amenities, and local goods
and services. This policy is consistent with the
land use density changes that were included in
the Preferred Land Use Alternative selected by
the City Council and also applies to any future
redevelopment of areas within the City. Do not
recommend deleting this policy.

See comment above regarding FAR.

No changes recommended. The placement of
outdoor seating areas and gathering places
can be determined through the Planned
Development process when projects are being
developed.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 22 of 37

to the old FAR standards be deleted.

See comment above regarding FAR.

pes Circulation Element

Maria at Marian Hospital, The other three
listed here are located on the oil platform over
3 miles off the coast.

local streets and neighborhood because of
ADU’s. This is a huge challenge for the
future.

Short- and long-Term transit
This paragraph should include
SMOOTH and other local transits opera tions
besides SMRT. Uber. Lyft. Etc.

Figs CIRC-1, CIRC-2 - This figure shows no
road patterns for the Planning Area on the
east side of Santa Maria. There should be
something planned for these annexation
areas. Fig CIR 2 shows no bike trails in the
annexation areas.

Specific Plans of street trails add to this
paragraph The class III bike trials are
becoming more of a problem because fo the
parking demand for ADU’s
Is there a need for charging stations for these
micro bikes?

side of the freeway for pedestrian trails.

Street??? need to have exhibits. Action CIR

1.1.1 Delete Too costly to convert exiting
streets to complete streets. CIR 1.3 Delete
as there is not enough space to do this design
in private projects.

CIRC 1.2 delete reference to private streets.

There is not enough road width to do
complete street designs.

Recommend making this change.

The regulation of parking for ADUs and JADUs
is per State law and addressed in the City’s
Municipal Code (Title 12). No changes are
recommended.

Private local transit operations are not operated
by or controlled by the City. No changes
recommended.

Future roadway planning will be completed
through the development of Specific Plans for
the Planned Annexation (PA) area. The plan
does show how exis ting roadways would
connect to this area. No changes
recommended.

No changes to the Class III bike trails are
recommended by the Public Works
Department at this time.

Future planning for pedestrian trails will be
completed through the development of Specific
Plans for the Planned Annexation (PA) area.

The plan does show how existing roadways
would connect to this area. No changes
recommended.

The Complete Streets Act and Office of Land
Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) Update to the
General Plan Gui delines: Complete Streets
and the Circulation Element emphasize
planning for a balanced multimodal network
that meets the needs of all users in a manner
suitable to local context, implemented through
adopted policies, standards, and prioritized
projects. T he Circulation Element follows this
framework by:

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 23 of 37

are already overtaxed and this would need
the vote of the city.
(1) establishing complete streets goals and
policies (Goal CIR-1),
(2) mapping the multimodal system
through the Street Network, Bikeway
Network, and Pedestrian Priority
Improvement Network diagrams, and
(3) providing implementable actions
including pursuing retrofit funding,
updating street standards, and
conditioning new development to
provide multimodal amenities to the
extent feasible.

Consistent with a context -sensitive, network -
based approach, the City also plans for the safe
and efficient movement of freight, emergency
response vehicles, transit vehicles, and other
large vehicles primarily on designated arterials
and collectors, while local residential streets
are designed and managed primarily for
neighborhood access, lower speeds, and safe
walking/rolling and bicycle compatibility. Local
streets therefore contribute to complete streets
through ADA -compliant pedestrian facilities,
safe crossings and connections to the
designated bicycle and transit corr idors, and
appropriate speed management rather than
requiring every corridor to accommodate every
mode, including freight or high-capacity transit,
on every block. No changes to Policies are
recommended.

Conservation and Open Space Element

groundwater basin is NOT in overdraft. This
has been determined by the courts.

right… Correct this paragraph.

change the 50 -year standard to …a year.
anything before 1960 may need to have a
historic review report

Will include a change on Page 12 to delete the
statement regarding potential overdraft of the
Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin.

This section is discussing the overall decrease
in emissions for commercial/industrial,
residential, and transportation sectors. These
percentages are not intended to add up to 100
percent, it is just noting the overall decrease in
each area. No changes recommended.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), structures that are typically 50 years
old or older are considered potential historical
resources. While 50 years is the general
threshold for evaluating significance, structures
younger than 50 years can also be designated
if they possess exceptional historical
significance. No changes recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 24 of 37

you talking about the riverbed? Is that in the
SLO county?

LOSS” this is very bad wording delete
Action COS 1.1.2

the county” Delete COS 1.2 and Action1.2.1
give county too much control over
annexations.

1.3.1 the city does not have mo ney to do
this, and the priority should be on active
recreation.

action items Urban wilding the city does not
have money to do this. Delete all of COS 2.1
Why would the city collaborate with the
county on ag land in the city???
Delete Action COS 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 This
whole action item needs to be deleted

items as there is no mining in the city of Santa
Maria. Policy COS 3.1 the urban canopy
only applies to the developed parts of the city.

Not SMAPCD or area 7 or 9 until they are
developed

While "mining" often refers to hard -rock
extraction, in regulatory and economic
contexts, it is an umbrella term for the
extraction of all non -renewable, naturally
occurring resources, including oil and gas uses.

Action COS 1.1.2 applies only to areas that are
identified as sensitive habitat or a wildlife
corridor area. It requires new development to
be located outside of these areas. Future
projects would be subject to the mitigation
measures in the Final EIR for the General Plan
(should the project use this document for
CEQA), or other mitigation developed through
a CEQA document specifically developed for
that project. No changes are recommended.

Recommend revising Polic y COS 1.2 as
follows:

Policy COS -1.2: City greenbelt. Coordinate
with Santa Barbara County to Develop a
continuous system of greenbelts and natural
corridors.

No changes to Action 1.2.1 are recommended.

This policy and action would provide the City
with the direction to facilitate/implement these
actions in the future should the City elect to do
that. No changes are recommended.

Policies addressing urban rewilding are
required to be included in General Plans due to
Senate Bill 1425 (SB 1425), which requires
cities and counties to update their local open -
space elements by January 1, 2026. The
update must include plans for rewilding
opportunities, climate resilience, and equitable
access to open space. See responses to Letter
number 1 above regarding COS 2.1 and related
actions.

While "mining" often refers to hard -rock
extraction, in regulatory and economic
contexts, it is an umbrella term for the
extraction of all non -renewable, naturally
occurring resources, including oil and gas uses
and infrastructure.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 25 of 37

Noise Element
Fig N-1 - Insert the new ALUC noise maps
from 2023
smx_alucp_v2_final.pdf

that the Railroad and the SMAP do not run at
night

Fig N -3 - Replace this map with the Noise
contour map from the EIR Fig…____

is written every project would be required to
have a noise study? Revise to only apply to
those projects with noise generating uses.

to state that exterior noise levels are allowed
to be at 75dB along major corridors (Ord 12 -

7.14a)
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
contains the most updated maps. The General
Plan references this document. No changes
are recommended.

While they do not currently operat e overnight,
this could change in the future. No changes are
recommended.

Figure 4.6-3 - Existing Traffic Noise Contours
in the EIR is the same figure that is included in
the Noise Element (Figure N -3). No changes
are recommended.

Action N -1.2.1 requires discretionary projects
that would be located adjacent to sensitive
noise receptors to complete a noise study to
determine if they will generate noise that would
exceed the allowable noise levels for adjacent
noise-sensitive land use s. This requirement
does not apply to ministerial permits.

Municipal Code Section 12-7.14a applies to
properties that are zoned R-2, medium density
residential. It states that o utdoor living areas
such as patios and balconies may be
incorporated into mul tifamily development
projects in areas which experience elevated
noise levels. These noise levels may not
exceed the "Normally Unacceptable"
Community Noise Exposure levels (75dB and
above) specified in Figure 2 of the "Noise
Element Guidelines" (Appendix C of the
California General Plan Guidelines).

Action N -2.1.4 directs the City to update the
Municipal Code to require new residential and
mixed-use development within the 60 dBA
CNEL noise contours or higher of
transportation corridors to submit an acoustical
analysis and incorporate noise reduction
strategies, such as vegetation buffers and
physical sound barriers, as necessary to meet
the requirements of the Noise Ordinance. The
incorporation of balconies and patios into
multifamily projects in the R -2 zone would not
be impacted by this Action. Therefore, no
changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 26 of 37

Safety Element
There should be a paragraphs and
references in this Element of the Safety
support agencies. Highway Patrol, sheriff,
county fire, AMR, Marian Hospital, Heliport,
etc. this is so important to know what the
resources are in this region.

to include a sentence on the future landfill site
at Los Flores. The city purchased this ranch
about 15 years ago for a new landfill stie after
the existing one closes.

other sections and policies should clearly
note who is responsible for the Dam. TMA,
SMWCD, BLM. And then FCD

related to the Twi tchell Dam should list
Twitchell Management Authority (TMA) and
Santa Maria Water Conservation District
(SMWCD) and BLM. Flood Control does not
have authority on the Dam. These policies
should be corrected.

should include reference to all other local
support services listed above.

A discussion of the Fire Department and Police
Department operations is included in the Public
Facilities and Services Element. Marian
Medical Center is discussed in the
Environmental Health and Justice Element. No
changes are recommended.

The Public Fac ilities and Services Element
includes a summary of solid waste facilities and
the landfill. No changes are recommended.

This information is included in the Public
Facilities and Services Element. No changes
are recommended.

Policy S -3.6 and Action S -3.6.2 reference
coordination with Santa Barbara County Flood
Control and other local and State agencies as
required. The General Plan is a long-term
comprehensive planning document through
2045, and responsible agencies could change
in the future. No changes are recommended.

Local support services would inherently be
involved with the development of the programs
noted in these policies. The General Plan is a
long-term comprehensive planning document
through 2045, and responsible agencies could
change in the future. No changes are
recommended.

Health and Environmental Justice Element

the H2 A paragraph about ADU’s. It would
seem that ADU’s and their known benefits
and i mpacts to the community warrant a
separate paragraph The city has issued over
2,000 ADU permits. There is no comment on
parking in local streets and neighborhood
because of ADU’s. This is a huge challenge
for the future and no of these neighborhood
streets will ever be Complete Streets.

Recommend revising as follows:

H-2A Housing. The increasing number of H-2A
Visa workers in agricultural jobs and The
associated requirements for employers to
supply worker housing have heightened the
need for increasing the amount of safe and
affordable housing in the city. No other
changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 27 of 37

3,2 Remove reference to “Complete
Streets”. There is no definition of what that
means and the city does not have funds to
make this happen. Also, many existing
streets are now impacted by ADU Parking so
there is no space to add amenities. Also,
these Complete Street Policies do not apply
to private driveways or internal roads.

Policy HEJ -8.6 and Action HEJ – 8.6.1,
Develop Community Benefit Agreements.

All of the DAC areas are located in the
existing city and not near the Planning Areas.

The PA will not be impacting those area s.

This is just adding another layer of costs on
future housing and development projects

Also, what about large city projects that might
be in these areas. DELETE this Policy and
Action item

See response regarding Complete Streets
policies and ADU regulations above.

This policy and action is included in the General
Plan to provide the City Council with the
opportunity to develop this type of program in
the future should they elect to do so. No
changes to this Policy and Action are
recommended.

Disadvantaged communities (DACs) are areas
identified by the California Environmental
Protection Agency or low-income areas that are
disproportionately affected by environmental
pollution and other hazards identified in
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 that can lead to negative
health effec ts, exposure, or environmental
degradation. A multistep process, including
extensive community engagement, was used
to identify Santa Maria’s DACs. This is required
per SB 1000 to be included in Environmental
Health and Justice Elements. No changes are
recommended.

Public Facilities and Services Element

How much state water is the city relying on
and how much groundwater. It is critical that
this information be in this document.

Green Canyon drainage through the middle
of the city of Santa Maria

college degree.

The most updated information regarding
groundwater can be found in the Utilities
Department annual reports such as the Urban
Water Management Plan and Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Referring to these
reports for the most updated information allows
the General Plan to remain relevant and avoid
frequent updates to this Element.

This section provides a general overview of
stormwater infrastructure in the city. No
additional changes are recommended.

Recommend including this information.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 28 of 37

There are no future school sites on the map.
with 50,000 people there will need to be 10
more schools and two more high schools.

Where are they going to be located?

per 1,000 and the number of fire fighters per
1,000.

Fig PFS -3 - Need to amend the map to
include the Orcutt Fire stations and proposed
fire stations in Orcutt And Santa Maria. Need
to add the Sheriffs Office on foster road. what
about police station on the east side of the
freeway. This is for the future not just what is
there today.

include a discussion on Los Flores landfill.

What is the schedule for this landfill to be
constructed?

The Land Use Policy Map identifies a potential
location for a future High School on the west
side of North Broadway, just south of Preisker
Rd. This Element notes that as educational
services and facilities are not directly provided
by the City of Santa Ma ria, the City's role and
responsibility are limited.

However, the City recognizes that to grow
properly, adequate school sites must be
planned for. The continued coordination and
input from the area’s school districts will be
imperative to identify the a ppropriate location
for new schools as a part of planning efforts.

For more information on the location and
distribution of existing and future school sites,
please see the Community Facility land use
designation in the General Plan Land Use Map
in the Lan d Use Element. Additional
information on existing schools and plans for
the future development of schools in the Santa
Maria Bonita School District and Santa Maria
Joint Union High School District can be found
at www.smbsd.org and www.smjuhsd.org. No
changes are recommended.

Annual updated information regarding staffing
is provided by the Police and Fire Departments.

Rather than include specific numbers which
change and would nec essitate frequent
updates to the General Plan, this Element
references these reports. No changes are
recommended.

Figure PFS-3 includes police and fire stations
within the City limits. A future fire station is
proposed adjacent to Blosser Rd. in the Blosser
Southeast Area 5B Specific Plan. The number
and location of future police and fire stations
will be determined through future planning
efforts, including Specific Plans, once more
information is available regarding the type and
intensity of development s proposed. No
changes are recommended.

The Public Facilities and Services Element of
the General Plan includes Goals and policies
addressing solid waste. Specifically, Policy
PFS-9.3: Regional cooperation , states:
collaborate with other agencies to develop
coordinated waste management solutions,
Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 29 of 37

WWTP capacity is sufficient for present
needs projected flows at full buildout will
exceed that capacity????
There is nothing in the General Plan that
details what is the current capacity, current
design and what is needed for future 16,000
units. Is the current plant able to serve all of
the future 160,000 people??? Give us some
facts???

not need additional fees for development
Policy PFS - 4.3 Schools….How many
schools has the city determined will be
needed and where will they be located for the
infill development and the annexation areas?

Why maintain this old ratio when the libraries
are being used 30 -40 % less? Need to
update these standards in light of the internet.

of these Public Facilities policies need to be
revised as most public buildings are not open
to the public anymore and they have security,
cameras and locked spaces. These policies
should reflect what is happening now.

supporting a unified approach to recycling,
waste diversion, and sustainable practices.

According to the Final EIR, t he Santa Maria
Regional Landfill has a maximum permitted
daily throughput of 8,820 tons per week and a
remaining capacity of approximately 2,845,000
cubic yards and is estimated to remain
operational through 2034 (California
Department of Resources, Recycling, and
Recovery [CalRecycle] 2025a). Beyond 2034,
solid waste generated by the city may be
diverted to other nearby landfills, such as the
Cold Canyon Landfill. The City’s Utilities
Department will continue monitoring the
remaining capacity of the landfill and the
General Plan provides flexibility in options
regarding waste management solutions if/when
the existing landfill reaches capacity.

This information is included in Section 4.8,
Utilities and Service Systems, of the Final EIR
prepared for the General Plan Update. Policy
PFS-1.2: Wastewater system , stat es the
following: Maintain a wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal system capable of
meeting the daily and peak demand of existing
and future residents and businesses. The Utility
Capacity Study is currently in the process of
being updated and is the best/most current
source to obtain information regarding
projected sewer flows.

No changes to these Policies and Actions are
recommended. Action PFS-3.1.2 provides the
City Council with the option to direct staff to
study a potential assessment district for funding
regional stormwater programs . See response
above regarding future school sites. The library
standards were reviewed by the library director
and city staff and were determined to be correct
for use in the General Plan.

The General Plan i s a long -term planning
document that includes Goals, Policies and
Actions to facilitate future use of public facilities
should this be directed by the City Council. This
provides an opportunity for future
consideration. No changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 30 of 37

by State law. All school sites are fences,
secured, and have cameras to monitor the
public. Delete this provision.

fighters are needed for now and at f ull build
out? How many fire stations will be needed
on the east side of town and to added infill
development.

Landfill. When is that going to be needed.

should have already been done with this plan.

Policy PFS -10.1 does not list Santa Maria
High School District? Do they have enough
high schools for the full build out of the city.?
See response to Goal PFS-6 and Policy PFS-1
above.

See response regarding Figure PFS-3 above.

See response above.

See response above regarding future school
sites.

Economic Development Element

opportunities in VSFB and the growing
medical and educational opportunities in the
region.

and VSFB and the SM Airport. This section
should refer to the 4 -year programs at AHC
that have just started.

Econ 2-3 – Change this policy to start with the
word “Encourage “not “ Prioritize.” We do
not want this policy to be used against the
annexation application.

Policy Econ 2.8 - This Needs to be a GOAL
for the SOI and annexations.

VSFB and Marian medical center are
discussed on page 7 of this Element. A
reference to the 4-year program at AHC can be
added to the Public Facilities and Services
Element and this Element as well. No changes
to Policy Econ-2.3 are recommended as this is
consistent with direction provided i n the
selected Preferred Land Use Alternative. Policy
Econ-2.8 is clear regarding direction for SOI
and annexations. No changes are
recommended.

Recreation and Parks Element

27…how much acreage is now maintained by
the city.

the city parks.

two parks Acquistapace and Carm en lane
and another under construction

equity that the city standard be 2.5 acre per
1,000. Also the city can barely afford to
maintain the parks that they have.

Rather than list all parks and recreational
facilities together by acreage, the Element
includes a separate map and table listing
Recreational Facilities and a separate map and
table for Parks Facilities. The leisure needs
assessment that is completed by the
Recreation and Parks Department includes the
full acreage of existing parks in the City and this
document is updated every 5 years. No
changes are recommended.

No changes to this policy are recommended.

The City Council has adopted 5 park acres per
1,000 as the current standard.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 31 of 37

Paragraph 4 Park Quality is poorly written.

The sentence should state that at 5 acres per
1,000 the city should currently have 550
acres but only have 270. At full build out, the
city at 5 acres per 1,000 would need to have
800 acres of parkland to acquire and
maintain. If the ratio is 2.5 acres per 1,000
the city would have 400 acres.

complete as it does not give the PC and CC
information on want is the current level of
service for each of these categories and what
the city should plan for in the future. Park
standard needs to be changed to 2.5 acres
per 1,000. Or the city needs to change th eir
inventory and include Los Flores Ranch,
school playgrounds including AHC, and the
many private cub houses, pools, and play
areas.

to only have 2.5 acres per 1,000. Action REC

2.1.1 add to this that the pa rk classification
should include schools and private amenities.

add another that describe the Landscaping
and Lighting District Tax that is paid for by
new residents.

Policy REC 3.3 and 3.4 3.5 it is too bad that
this was not discussed in the body of this
element. Could include PCPA, High School
program orchestra, Civic theater, etc. also
referred to OASIS, and other senior centers

No changes to this policy are recommended.

The City Council has adopted 5 park acres per
1,000 as the current standard.

No changes to this policy are recommended.

The City Council has adopted 5 park acres per
1,000 as the current standard. Los Flores
Ranch is not located within City limits and is not
a designated City park. Private amenities that
are not accessible to the general public cannot
be included as a city park. However,
developers may include open spaces in project
design that could be designated for public use.

No changes to this policy are recommended.

The City Council has adopted 5 park acres per
1,000 as the current standard. Private
amenities that are not accessible to the general
public cannot be included as a city park.

However, developers may include open spaces
in project design that could be designated for
public use.

Action REC-2.2.1 states: Regularly review and
update park mitigation fees to reflect current
needs and construction costs. No changes to
this Action are recommended.

No changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 32 of 37

Letter 4: Urban Planning Concepts, Inc. PowerPoint, February 18, 2026 Requested Policy Changes:

Land Use Element

the old Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as this
standard no longer applies in the planning
profession based on new Housing Laws that
require High Density Housing and Mixed-Use
projects to be much higher than 1 or 2 FAR.

Action LU -2.1.1 In collaboration with the
County of Santa Barbara . As soon as
possible the city shall submit a LAFCO
application to modify the city’s Sphere of
Influence to include the Planned Annexation
Areas.

The city is the lead agency on these
applications not the county. The county does
not support the Planning Area application as
noted in their comment letter.

Delete all of Policy LU- 2.2
Policy LU-2.2: Connections to annexed area.

Require new develop ment within future
annexation areas to provide infrastructure,
multimodal, and public realm connections to
the developed core of Santa MariaThere is no
explanation as to what the city is looking for
to connect PA 1 to the downtown four miles
away?

Policy LU -2.3 Revise Bullet – Provide 2.5
acres per 5 acres of parks per 1,000
residents, per the City’s park service
standard, and plan for new public and
recreational facilities. Throughout the whole
General Plan elements all references to 5
aces per 1,000 needs to be revised to the
current actual standard of 2.5 acres

See comments above regarding FAR. No
changes are recommended.

Recommend revising as follows:

Action LU -2.1.1: In collaboration with the
County of Santa Barbara, The city shall submit
a LAFCO application to modify the city’s
Sphere of Influence to include the Planned
Annexation Areas.

Policy LU -2.2 would ensure that future
developments located within the Planned
Annexation (PA) area are planned as complete
neighborhoods with mult i-modal access to
adjacent developed areas that allow for multi -
modal access to the developed core area of the
City (bike paths, roads, sidewalks, for
example). This policy is flexible and intended to
allow for creativity in the design of future
developed areas.

No changes to this policy are recommended.

The City Council has adopted 5 park acres per
1,000 as the current standard.

Circulation Element
CIRC 1.1, CIRC 1.2, 1.3
Delete reference to “Complete Street???
The city has not provided an example of what
a Complete street? It should have been
included in this Element so that future
landowners know what they are being
required to do. These standards do not apply
to private driveways and roads

See response above regarding these
comments. No changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 33 of 37

Policy CIR 1.2 Complete Streets
Construction: Complete City street and
private streets to be constructed and
maintained to the extent feasible
Policy CIR -1.3: Complete Streets in new
development. Condition approvals of new
development with street improvements and
access provisions, to the extent feasible, that
would be necessary to maintain multimodal
operating standards and require complete
street amenities consistent with the General
Plan and accepted standards for new pub lic
and private streets
Conservation Element

Subsurface groundwater flows to the ocean
are required to prevent seawater intrusion
into the Basin . Overdraft of the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin could lead to the
reduction of available quality groundwater. It
could also reduce the natural subsurface flow
towards the ocean, leading to an increased
The courts have ruled that the SMV
groundwater basin is not in overdraft and the
TMA is responsible to reporting each year on
the health of the basin. This information
should have been detailed in this element.

Historic Review – The City needs to add an
action item. Action ____ City will change the
city ordinance so that historic value review
may apply to buildings built before 1960 or
earlier as the benchmark date instead of
referring to 50 years old (1975)

Action COS-1.1.1: Prevent the loss of natural
land area and/or the reduction of the quality
of natural lands through the establishment of
a no net loss land use management policy.
• Site new development outside of sensitive
habitat and wildlife corridor areas.
• Prohibit redevelopment that would encroach
upon sensitive habitat and wildlife corridor
areas.

Recommend revising as follows:

Subsurface groundwater flows to the ocean are
required to prevent seawater intrusion into the
Basin. Overdraft of the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin could lead to the reduction
of available quality groundwater. It could also
reduce the natural subsurface flow towards the
ocean, leading to an increased potential of
saltwater intrusion on the western edge of the
Basin.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), structures that are typically 50 years
old or older are considered potential historical
resources. While 50 years is the general
threshold for evaluating significance, structures
younger than 50 years can also be designated
if they possess exceptional hist orical
significance. No changes recommended.

Action COS 1.1.2 applies only to areas that are
identified as sensitive habitat or a wildlife
corridor area. It requires new development to
be located outside of these areas. Future
projects would be subject to the mitigation
measures in the Final EIR for the General Plan
(should the project use this document for
CEQA), or other mitigation developed through
a CEQA document specifically developed for
that project. No changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 34 of 37

Action COS -1.1.2: If impacts to natural
resources are identified during environmental
review, require the applicant to adjust site
design and/or i ncorporate additional
mitigation measures to minimize the
identified impacts

Delete these policies that state “ Coordinate
with the county …” and references to green
belt. The city can not commit to a greenbelt
around the city.

Policy COS -1.2: City greenbelt. Coordinate
with Santa Barbara County to develop a
continuous system of greenbelts and natural
corridors.

Action COS -1.2.1: Define the purpose and
desired outcomes for a system of greenbelts
and collaborate with Santa Barbara County to
develop designation criteria and standards
for the design, implementation, and use of
greenbelt areas.

Action COS-1.2.2: Assess existing land use
patterns to designate areas that will comprise
the City’s greenbelt. Design the greenbelt to
ensure connectivity to existing and planned
parks, trails, and open spaces to facilitate
wildlife movement
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.

See response above . No changes are
recommended.

Recommend revising Policy COS 1.2 as
follows:

Policy COS -1.2: City greenbelt. Coordinate
with Santa Barbara County to Develop a
continuous system of greenbelts and natural
corridors.

No other changes are recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 35 of 37

Noise Element
Change out the Noise Element Figures to be
correct
Revise Action N -2.1.4: Update According to
the City’s Municipal Code to require new
residential and mixed use development
located above 75 dBA CNEL within the 60
dBA CNEL noise contours or higher of
transportation corridors to submit an
acoustical analysis and incorporate noise
reduction strategies, such as vegetation
buffers and physical sound barriers, as
necessary to meet the requirements of the
Noise Ordinance (Ord 12-7.14a)

See response above regarding Action N-2.1.4.

No changes are recommended. The Noise
Element Figures were reviewed and no
changes are recommended.

Health and Environmental Justice
Policy HEJ-8.6: Develop community benefits
agreements. Facilitate the creation of
community benefits agreements (CBAs) for
major private development projects to
provide resources and mitigate pollution
impacts for the benefit of local communities,
especially when located in a DAC.

Action HEJ -8.6.1: Identify potential
community benefits, including:
• Lower levels of environmental
pollution
• Reduced car and truck traffic
More affordable housing units
• Workforce development
opportunities
• Tree and native species planting
• Shade structures for extreme heat
events
• Green (e.g., trees) or gray (e.g.
sound walls) barriers for noise and
pollution mitigation
• Community gardens and publicly
accessible green space
Other investments as suggested by
Santa Maria community members.

This policy and action is included in the General
Plan to provide the City Council with the
opportunity to develop this type of program in
the future should they elect to do so. No
changes to this Policy and Action are
recommended.

Public Facilities and Services Element
Goals PFS-6 Policy PFS -1 and Policy PFS

6.5 They should all be deleted or revised to state
that currently these buildings are locked
down, fenced off or under surveillance and
only available to the public in limited manner.

School site are not open to the public.

See response above. No changes a re
recommended.

Attachment J
SANTA MARIA 2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,
2026 PG. 36 of 37

Recreation and Parks Element
Park quality and capacity. Population growth
over the last 25 to 30 years has contributed
to overcrowding at many parks, (Why did the
city Parks allow this to happen?) and this
trend is expected to continue u nless new
parkland is added or existing facilities are
expanded. To meet the City’s park service
goal today would require over 270 acres of
new parkland above the current 250 acres
??? and over 440 acres by 2050. In addition
to park expansion, it will be i mportant to
optimize underutilized portions of existing
parks and to incorporate new parks into future
Specific Plans.

The city policy of 5 acres per 1,000 in
unattainable and the city could not afford to
maintain that much land. Current there is 230
acres and the city cannot afford to take on
more than 2.5 acres per 1,000.

PC needs to recommend to the city council
this new policy of 2.5 acres per 1,000

See response above. No changes are
recommended.

Letter 5: Dignity Health Marian Regional Medical Center, February 17, 2026 Dignity Health requests the City to designate
60 acres of the Planned Annexation (PA)
bordered by Main Street and Suey Road for
Community Facilities (CF) development with
a specific medical facility overlay. The
potential future uses for this land include but
are limited to the development of health
sciences education campus, a behavioral
health hospital and supportive services,
advanced imaging and diagnostic services,
ambulatory surgical center, skilled,
convalescent and assisted li ving facilities,
ancillary retail services and a comprehensive
medical offices complex. The designation of
land, close to the hub of existing medical
services will streamline future development
and accelerate the timeframe for future
services. It will prio ritize healthcare for the
community and allow for planning for needed
housing and retail development in the
remaining Planned Annexation. The
identified location will create a cohesive
healthcare market that will create
convenience for patients, efficienci es for
healthcare providers and unity for the
community.

This item can be reviewed in coordination with
Marian Regional Medical Center following
adoption of the General Plan and direction from
the City Council to initiate the LAFCO
application process for SOI amendments and
annexation. This process would include pre -
zoning the 985-acre Planned Annexation area
where the requested acreage for future medical
uses can be considered. This letter is noted as
being a part of the record for the General Plan
Update. No changes are recommended.

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

Attachments
A – Santa Maria 2045 General Plan
B – Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2025020584) C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
D – CEQA Findings
E – Statement of Overriding Considerations
F – Official Zoning Map
Environmental Resolution
General Plan Adoption Resolution
Zoning Map Resolution with attached Ordinance