Solvang City Council
January 10, 2022

Impacts During Operation
Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations that would affect sensitive receptors. Operational emissions would be generated from vehicle trips associated with standard operation and maintenance activities. As previously discussed, emissions from these sources would be substantially below the SBCAPCD thresholds of significance. Maintenance trucks may be diesel powered, which would result in small amounts of diesel particulate matter. These emissions would be negligible, as shown in Table 3.5-4. In addition, ambient CO concentrations in the County are well below the ambient air quality standards and the additional vehicle trips associated with standard operation and maintenance activities would not cause or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots that would exceed the standards. As a result, impacts from project operational emissions to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to exposure to sensitive receptors, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
As indicated in Table 3.5-3 and Table 3.5-4, construction and operation of the Revised Project would result in emissions that do not exceed the SBCAPCD thresholds of significance. Projects that do not exceed the project-level threshold would not contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts. However, even if construction emissions would be less than the 25-ton threshold, the SBCAPCD requires that projects implement construction mitigation measures. Therefore, the Revised Project will comply with SBCAPCD required construction mitigation measures, reflected in Mitigation Measure AIR-1. The Revised Project would adhere to and comply with applicable SBCAPCD rules and regulations, including permitting requirements for emergency generators. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the land use and population forecasts used in the most recent Clean Air Plan, and would be consistent with Clean Air Plan policies and SBCAPCD rules and regulations. Construction of the Revised Project would result in 496
less than significant impacts and, therefore, its cumulative contribution would not be significant.

Operation of the Revised Project would remain less than significant cumulative impact with respect to air quality. Therefore, with respect to cumulative air quality impacts, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.5.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
The Revised Project will be required to follow the mitigation measure previously identified Certified FEIR for Air Quality, Mitigation Measure AIR-1, which is as follows:

AIR-1 The construction of facilities associated with the implementation of the Master Plan Update shall comply with the following SBCAPCD construction mitigation measures to reduce emissions and fugitive dust in accordance with state law and SBCAPCD policies:

During construction, the contractor shall use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. However, reclaimed water should not be used in or around crops for human consumption.

The contractor shall minimize the amount of disturbed area and reduce on site vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour or less.

If importation, exportation, and stockpiling of fill material is involved, the contractor shall ensure that soil stockpiled for more than two days be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.

The contractor shall install gravel pads at all access points to prevent tracking of mud onto public roads.

After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the contractor shall treat the disturbed area by watering, revegetating, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur.

The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The names and telephone numbers of such persons shall be 497
to the Air Pollution Control District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of the structure.

Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.

The contractor shall register all portable diesel-powered construction equipment with the state’ s portable equipment registration program OR shall obtain an SBCAPCD permit.

The contractor shall comply with applicable provisions of the CARB Regulation for Inuse Off-road Diesel Vehicles ( Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, Section 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. For more information, please refer to the CARB website at
www.arb.ca.gov/ msprog/ ordiesel/ ordiesel. htm.

The contractor shall comply with applicable provisions of Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to 5 minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.

3.5.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to impacts identified in the Certified FEIR.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 identified in the Certified FEIR shall be implemented for construction of the Revised Project for compliance with the SBCAPCD rules and regulations.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts to air quality beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 498

3.6 GREENHOUSE GASES

3.6.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR

3.6.1.1 Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions that May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
Construction Impacts
Construction activity that would result from the Approved Project would result in one-time GHG emissions that is, the GHG emissions would not be ongoing and would only occur during construction activity.

Construction GHG emissions would primarily result from the combustion of fossil fuels from heavy-duty construction equipment and from construction worker trucks and vehicles. The primary GHG emissions during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. The other GHGs defined by state law (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted during construction of the Master Plan Update. The CalEEMod model was used in the Certified FEIR analysis to estimate the construction-related GHG emissions assuming that all the activities described above are undertaken. The estimated construction- related GHG emissions are provided in Table 3.6-1: Estimated Construction GHG Emissions.

The Certified FEIR stated it is common practice to amortize construction- related GHG emissions over the project’ s lifetime in order to include these emissions as part of a project’ s amortized lifetime total emissions so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies.

Table 3.6-1
Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Activity MTCO2e/ Year
Infrastructure 3,772
Well Drilling, Installation, and Testing 51
Water Treatment Plant 329
Overall Total 4,152
30-Year Annual Amortized Rate 138
Source: See Appendix E.

A conservative project lifetime is 30 years. However, the Certified FEIR determined it is likely that the components of the Project would last well beyond this assumed timeframe. The construction GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and were included in the amortized operational GHG emissions discussed below. It should be noted that the BAAQMD thresholds of significance do not apply to construction- related GHG emissions. Therefore, the inclusion of the amortized construction emissions is a conservative approach to assessing the Approved Project’ s level of significance. 499
Impacts During Operation
Under the Approved Project the City would implement an annual waterline, fire hydrant, and valve replacement program and provide additional water storage capacity. This program would result in additional vehicle trips, which would generate GHG emissions. The proposed six wells would also generate additional vehicle trips for maintenance purposes. The proposed water treatment plant would not normally be occupied, but would be visited a few hours each day by City operations personnel, which would also generate additional vehicle trips and emissions. Emissions would also be generated from electricity from Pacific Gas and Electric ( PG& E) that would be used to power pumps at the proposed six wells and the proposed water treatment plant.

A summary of the operational GHG emissions is provided in Table 3.6-2: Estimated Operational GHG Emissions of the Certified FEIR.

The emissions shown Table 3.6-2 are based on conservative assumptions. Therefore, the emissions should be viewed as maximum emissions under a reasonably assumed “ worst-case” scenario. Nonetheless, the emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance and would be considered less than significant Class III).

Table 3.6-2
Estimated Operational GHG Emissions of the Proposed Project Emission Source MTCO2e/ Year
Non-Stationary Sources
Amortized Construction 138
Energy ( Infrastructure) 0
Energy ( Wells) 369
Energy ( Water Treatment Plant) 97
Mobile Sources ( Infrastructure) 12
Mobile Sources ( Wells) 23
Mobile Sources( Water Treatment
Plant) 9
Total 648
Non-Stationary Source Threshold 1,100
Exceeds Non-Stationary Threshold? No
Stationary Sources
Emergency Generators ( 2) 71
Stationary Source Threshold 10,000
Exceeds Stationary Source
Threshold? No
Source: See Appendix E.
500

3.6.1.2 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Impacts
The primary GHG emissions regulation in California is AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions inventory to 1990 levels by 2020. Construction activity would be required to comply with CARB’ s anti-idling rule, which prohibits vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes with certain exceptions, such as concrete trucks that must idle in order to mix and dispense concrete. Compliance with this rule would limit construction- related GHG emissions. As discussed above, the construction GHG emissions are included in the project’ s operational GHG emissions and assessed together. Therefore, the Approved Project’ s level of significance with respect to this threshold is discussed below under the operational subheading.

Impacts During Operation
The primary GHG emissions regulation in California is AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions inventory to 1990 levels by 2020. At the time of the Certified FEIR, the SBCAPCD had not adopted a numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions and recommended using thresholds of significance that have been adopted by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD developed its GHG significance thresholds in order to ensure compliance with AB 32 emissions reductions requirements in the Bay Area.

Therefore, if a project emits below the significance threshold, it can be assumed to comply with AB 32.

While the Approved Project is not located in the Bay Area, it can be reasonably assumed that the Approved Project would also not conflict with AB 32 if it does not exceed the same thresholds. The Certified FEIR stated this is a reasonable assumption because Santa Barbara County as a whole generates fewer emissions than the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB); thus, GHG emissions from Santa Barbara County contribute less to the statewide inventory compared to the SFBAAB. As shown in Table 3.6-2, the Master Plan Update would not exceed the significance thresholds for non-stationary and stationary source emissions. Furthermore, the Certified FEIR concluded the Approved Project would not conflict with the mandate that PG& E increase its renewable energy portfolio to 33 percent by 2020. General Plan Policy

6.a, which states the City shall require new development to incorporate alternative energy systems, would support the increased use of renewable energy. As a result, the Approved Project would not conflict with the state’ s ability to meet its GHG goals under AB 32 and would result in a less than significant impact Class III).

3.6.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact as GHG emissions do not have a localized impact; they impact the globe as a whole. Therefore, any analysis of the Certified FEIR Project’ s GHG 501
emissions is, by definition, a cumulative analysis. As discussed above, the Project’ s GHG would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed above. Therefore, the Certified FEIR Project’ s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable ( Class III).

3.6.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the river wells portion of the Approved Project but it would be constructed and operated a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes up to two new river wells in Well Site B instead of up to 6 new wells in Well Site A and B under the Approved Project. The Revised Project also proposes diverting 1,368 AFY at a maximum rate of 2.84 cfs, which is reduced from the 1,980 AFY at 5 cfs proposed in the Approved Project. The reach of diversion has been substantially reduced from 19,500 feet in the Approved Project to a Final Reach of Diversion of 8,060 feet in the Revised Project.

Stationary source emissions would be generated from one (1) 50-kw emergency generator that would be used to improve water supply reliability during power outages, compared to the Approved Project which assumed two (2) 1,000 kw emergency generators for the six (6) wells. Additionally, other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.6.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations Ten years after the passage of AB 32, California extended and strengthened the limit on greenhouse gas emissions with the passage of SB 32 in 2016. The state raised its goal for greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.148
As mentioned earlier, the SBCAPCD updated its environmental review guideline in 2015. The SBCAPCD presented two threshold options for setting project significance. 149 The two thresholds were “Bright Line” which requires mitigation to below 10,000 MT to make a finding of less than significant or the AB 32 Consistency Threshold which Utilizes a 10,000 MTCO2e/ yr screening threshold and considers Cap-andTrade as a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. A majority of the members voted to recommend the AB 32 Consistency threshold option for adoption by the District Board of Directors. 150 The County of Santa Barbara Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) was updated in May 2015. The ECAP, which seeks to reduce the County of Santa Barbara’ s GHG emissions through implementation of selected 148 California Air Resources Board. https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/ fact-sheets/ ab-32-global- warming- solutions- act-2006.

Accessed October 2021.
149 Santa Barbara County. Air Pollution Control District (APCD). https:// www.ourair.org/ greenhouse- gases-and-ceqa/. Accessed October 2021.
150 Santa Barbara County. Air Pollution Control District (APCD). https:// www.ourair.org/ greenhouse- gases- and-ceqa/. Accessed October 2021.
502
emission reduction measures ( ERMs) with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the unincorporated county by 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. The ECAP also includes a forecast to 2035, which assumes steady progress after 2020 toward reducing the County of Santa Barbara’ s collective GHG emissions, based on continued implementation of ERMs. The ECAP also assists the County of Santa Barbara with reducing GHG emissions consistent with AB 32.151

3.6.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
Updated CalEEMod simulations were run for the Revised Project to show greenhouse gas emissions in construction and operational impacts compared to the construction and operational emissions of the Approved Project. Emissions from the Revised Project would be below significance thresholds, result in lower emissions compared to the Approved Project’ s emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.6.4.1 Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, that May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
Construction Impacts
As shown in Table 3.6-3: Estimated Construction Emissions of the Revised Project, construction of the Revised Proposed Project would result in lower emissions compared to the Approved Project analyzed in the Certified FEIR. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would result in one-time GHG emissions. The construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period and are included in the amortized operational GHG emissions discussed in the next section. As discussed below, the Revised Project would not exceed the non-stationary or stationary BAAQMD thresholds. Moreover, construction emissions would not exceed the SBCAPCD Thresholds updated in the 2015 environmental review guidelines. 152 The impacts from the Revised Project construction would be less than significant.

Therefore, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions during construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
As shown in Table 3.6-4: Estimated Operational Emissions of the Revised Project, operation of the Revised Project would result in lower emissions compared to the Approved Project analyzed in the 151 County of Santa Barbara. Energy and Climate Action Plan. https:// www.countyofsb. org/ csd/ asset.c/ 173. Accessed October 2021.
152 Santa Barbara County. Air Pollution Control District ( APCD). https:// www.ourair. org/ greenhouse- gases- and-ceqa/.

Accessed October 2021.
503
Certified FEIR. Moreover, the Revised Project would not exceed the non-stationary or stationary BAAQMD thresholds or the SBCAPCD Thresholds updated in the 2015 environmental review guidelines. 153 Table 3.6-3
Estimated Construction GHG Emissions of The Revised Project Source MTCO2e/ Year
Approved Project 4,152
Revised Project 723
30-Year Annual Amortized Rate 24
Source: Refer to Appendix E, Section 2.1 for maximum annual construction emissions.

Table 3.6-4
Estimated Operational GHG Emissions of the Revised Project Source MTCO2e/ Year
Non-Stationary Sources
Approved Project 648
Revised Project 103
Non-Stationary Source Threshold 1,100
Exceeds Non-Stationary Threshold? No
Exceeds Approved Project Emissions? No
Stationary Sources ( Emergency Generators) a
Approved Project 71
Revised Project 2
Stationary Source Threshold 10,000
Exceed Stationary Threshold? No
Exceeds Approved Project Emissions? No
Note:
a The Certified FEIR assumed two (2) 1,000 kW emergency generators. The Revised Project would use one (1) 50 kW generator. Additionally, the CalEEMod model assumes higher efficiency for generators for the Revised Project than the CalEEMod model did at the time of the Certified FEIR. Thus, the generator for the Revised Project would result in substantially less emissions compared to the generators proposed under the Approved Project.

Source: Refer to Appendix E, Section 2.2 for annual operation emissions.

Stationary source emissions would be generated from one (1) 50-kw emergency generator that would be used to improve water supply reliability during power outages, compared to the Approved Project which assumed two (2) 1,000 kw emergency generators for the six ( 6) wells. Emergency generators may be 153 Santa Barbara County. Air Pollution Control District (APCD). https:// www.ourair.org/ greenhouse- gases- and-ceqa/. Accessed October 2021.
504
subject to SBCAPCD air quality permitting requirements and would be scheduled to operate during standard testing and maintenance activities, which is anticipated to be about 1 hour per week and 50 hours per year. The impacts from the Revised Project operation would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.6.4.2 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Impacts
The primary GHG emissions regulation in California is AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions inventory to 1990 levels by 2020. Construction activity would be required to comply with CARB’ s anti-idling rule, which prohibits vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes with certain exceptions, such as concrete trucks that must idle in order to mix and dispense concrete. Compliance with this rule would limit construction- related GHG emissions. As discussed above, the ECAP identified a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the unincorporated county by 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020 utilizing a mix of voluntary, phased and mandatory ERMs. The mandatory ERMs include alternative- fuel vehicles and incentives, energy efficient renovations, community forestry, and alternative energy development. 154 The Revised Project would be required to implement the mandatory ERMs. Additionally, the Revised Project is a public infrastructure improvement project that would serve existing and future water needs throughout the City and, as only two new wells are proposed, some of the alternative- fuel vehicles and incentives, energy efficient renovations, community forestry, and alternative energy development may not apply to the Revised Project. As discussed above, the construction GHG emissions are included in the Revised Project’ s operational GHG emissions and assessed together. Moreover, the Revised Project would result in lower emissions compared to the Approved Project evaluated in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, the Revised Project’ s level of significance with respect to this threshold is discussed below under the operational subheading. As the Revised Project would comply with the mandatory ERMs that are applicable to a public infrastructure improvement project, the Revised Project would not conflict with the ECAP and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 154 County of Santa Barbara. Energy and Climate Action Plan. https:// www.countyofsb. org/ csd/ asset. c/ 173. Accessed October 2021.
505
Impacts During Operation
As identified in the Certified FEIR, the Approved Project’ s GHG would be less than significant. The Revised Project is a scaled down version of the river wells component of the Approved Project, with two wells and no water treatment plant, a lower total annual diversion rates. As shown in Table 3.6-4, the Revised Project would not exceed the significance thresholds for non-stationary and stationary source emissions.

The operational emissions shown Table 3.6-4 are based on conservative assumptions. Therefore, the emissions should be viewed as maximum emissions under a reasonably assumed “ worst-case” scenario.

Nonetheless, the emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance and would be considered less than significant.

Furthermore, the Revised Project would not conflict with the mandate that PG& E increase its renewable energy portfolio to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. General Plan Policy 6.a would support the increased use of renewable energy. As a result, the Revised Project would not conflict with the state’ s ability to meet its GHG goals under AB 32 and would result in a less than significant impact.

As discussed above, the Revised Project would comply with the mandatory ERMs that are applicable to a public infrastructure improvement project. The Revised Project would not conflict with the ECAP and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.6.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact as GHG emissions do not have a localized impact; they impact the globe as a whole. Therefore, any analysis of the Revised Project’ s GHG emissions is, by definition, a cumulative analysis. As discussed above, the Revised Project’ s GHG would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed above. Therefore, the Revised Project’ s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.6.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the Certified FEIR. No mitigation measures would be required for the Revised Project.
506

3.6.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant, similar to those disclosed in the Certified FEIR.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts to greenhouse gas emissions beyond that which was disclosed as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.7 LAND USE

3.7.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR
The City of Solvang General Plan Land Use Map designates the proposed Well Site A as Agriculture. The Solvang Zoning and Address Map designates the proposed Well Site A as Agricultural. The proposed water treatment plant site located in the City’s Alisal Commons open space is located within the City’ s right-ofway and adjacent to Open Space/ Recreation land uses on the Land Use Map. 155 The proposed water treatment facility site is designated as within the City’ s right-of-way and adjacent to a Recreational zone on the Zoning and Address Map. Well Site B is located outside of the City’s limits in the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Area of unincorporated Santa Barbara County. Land use for Well Site B is designated as A-I-40 ( Agriculture I-40 or more acres minimum parcel size), A-I-20 ( Agriculture I-20 or more acres minimum parcel size), and General Industry according to the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations Inner- Rural and Rural Areas. 156

3.7.1.1 Physically Divide an Established Community
The Certified FEIR identified that no facilities proposed by the Approved Project could divide an established community. Implementation of the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community. The Approved Project is considered a public infrastructure improvement project that would continue to provide service within its current service area and does not include any expansion.

Upon implementation, the water facilities would support and enhance existing land uses by providing the opportunity for a more secure and stable water source. Well Sites A or B would consist of facilities that would extend below the ground surface and protrude 2 feet above the ground surface. These facilities would not physically divide the established community within the City. The proposed Well Site B is located 155 City of Solvang, General Plan, Land Use Element, June 23, 2008. 156 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations, October 2009 (Map). 507
within unincorporated Santa Barbara County. Implementation of the proposed Approved Project in unincorporated County areas would not conflict with the County’ s Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, policy, or regulations and would not divide existing agricultural operations adjacent to the site. The water treatment plant would have been constructed to the City’ s current building standards and would contain architecture similar to the existing SWP pump station located to the east of the proposed water treatment facility. The construction and implementation of the water treatment facility would not physically divide the surrounding residential land uses. The Certified FEIR concluded impacts to established communities would be less than significant ( Class III).

3.7.1.2 Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation The Solvang General Plan Land Use Map157 designates the proposed Well Site A as Agriculture. River Well Site B is located outside of the City’s limits in unincorporated Santa Barbara County and is designated as A-I-40 ( Agriculture I 40 or more acres minimum parcel size), A-I-20 ( Agriculture I 20 or more acres minimum parcel size), and General Industry according to the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations Inner-Rural and Rural Areas.

The Solvang Zoning and Address Map designates the proposed Well Site A as Agricultural. Well Site B is located outside of the City and is designated as AG-I-40 ( Agriculture), AG-I-20 ( Agriculture), and M-2 Industrial) according to the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Zoning Inner-Rural and Rural Areas. 158 Well Site A would be located within the City’ s jurisdiction and is designated as Agriculture under the Land Use Map and Agriculture under the Zoning and Address Map. According to the City’ s Municipal Code Section 11-6-1(B), the Master Plan Update in the Certified FEIR is exempt from land use permit as the river wells would be a public works facility constructed by the City. Land use impacts would be less than significant for the proposed Well Site A.

Well Site B is located outside of the City limits and city’s sphere of influence in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The site is designated as A-I-40, A-I-20, and General Industry according to the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations Inner-Rural and Rural Areas. Well site B is zoned as AG-I40 (Agriculture), AG-I-20 (Agriculture), and M-2 (Industrial) according to the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Zoning Inner-Rural and Rural Areas. The design of the wells would be consistent and compatible with adjacent agricultural lands ( Policy LUA-SYV-3 of the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan) including appropriate buffers and fences to protect adjacent agricultural operations from potential conflicts and 157 City of Solvang, General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted June 23, 2008. 158 County of Santa Barbara, Planning & Development Department, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, ( 2009) Figure 11. 508
claims of nuisance. The Certified FEIR concluded impacts related to applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant.

According to the Santa Barbara County Code, the river wells of the Approved Project ( as classified as a water system with 5 or more connections) would require a minor conditional use permit ( CUP) in agricultural and industrial zones. 159 Depending on the City’ s ability to obtain access agreements, either or both locations may be utilized for the installation of the proposed six (6) new wells. The City would be required to acquire additional easements for the new river wells and associated waterlines from Alisal Ranch and other owners downstream of Alisal Bridge. The City would need to obtain a minor CUP, as well as grading permits, for the development of wells within the proposed Well Site B. The Certified FEIR concluded the proposed development of wells within the proposed Well Site B would not conflict with Santa Barbara County Code or the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant ( Class III).

3.7.1.3 Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
The Certified FEIR identified that there are no habitat conservation plans 160 or natural community conservation plans 161 near the Project area. Therefore, the Approved Project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan ( HCP) or natural communities conservation plan ( NCCP) and impacts were considered less than significant ( Class III).

The City is a member of the Santa Ynez Water Conservation District (SYWCD). The Santa Ynez River flows are dependent of operations of the Cachuma Project. The Cachuma Project operates under the 2000 BiOp162 and the FMP163 for the endangered species O. mykiss ( steelhead). A Settlement Agreement was reached between the Member Units of the Cachuma Project (Montecito Water District, the City of Santa Barbara, Goleta Water District, and ID No. 1) to agree to protect downstream water rights. As discussed in Section 5.1 of the Certified FEIR and Section 3.1: Hydrology, Water Supply, and Water Quality of this Addendum, the Master Plan Update would not interrupt the flow requirements under the 2000 BiOp for 159 County of Santa Barbara, The Code of Santa Barbara County (The Santa Barbara County Code), Chapter 35, “Agricultural and Industrial Zones,” Table 2-1 and Table 2-20.
160 US Fish & Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office, “ Habitat Conservation Plans,” http:// www.fws.gov/ ventura/ endangered/ habitat_ conservation_ planning/ hcp/ index.html. Updated July 15, 2011. 161 California Department of Fish and Game, Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), November 2011. 162 National Marine Fisheries Service. Biological Opinion for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California September 11, 2000. 163 Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. Volumes I and II. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, California. Final Report. October 2, 2000. 509
steelhead. Therefore, the Certified FEIR Project would be consistent with the 2000 BiOp and the FMP.

Impacts would be less than significant ( Class III).

3.7.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The City reviews all proposed projects against development and design guidelines that regulate permitted uses, development density, building heights, site and building design, transportation demand, and neighborhood protection.

The County of Santa Barbara reviews all proposed projects within the unincorporated County areas and towns of Ballard, Los Olivos, and Santa Ynez. All projects are evaluated for consistency with citywide and countywide land use controls, development standards, and applicable plans and policies, including those of the general plan, during project review and the approval process.

Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding conflict with applicable land use plans and development criteria would be less than significant ( Class III).

3.7.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the river wells component of the Approved Project but it would be constructed and operated at a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes up to two new river wells in Well Site B instead of up to 6 new wells in Well Site A and B under the Approved Project. The Revised Project also proposes diverting 1,368 AFY at a maximum rate of 2.84 cfs, which is reduced from the 1,980 AFY at 5 cfs proposed in the Approved Project. The reach of diversion under the Revised Project has been substantially reduced and shifted downstream from 19,500 feet in the Approved Project to a Final Reach of Diversion of 8,060 feet in the Revised Project. Additionally, other components of the Master Plan Update are the same ( abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.7.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations The County of Santa Barbara amended its Land Use Element in December 2016. 164 The Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map was updated in May 2019. 165 The City has also adopted a new Land Use Map as of 2021. 166 The goals and policies in the County of Santa Barbara Land Use Element that apply to the Revised Project have not changed since the time of the Certified FEIR. The 164 County of Santa Barbara. County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element, Amended December 2016. 165 County of Santa Barbara. County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element COMP- 1, May 2019. 166 Santa Barbara County Assessor Office, 2021. Existing Land Uses, February 2021. 510
Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan was updated in January 2019. 167 These amendments and changes do not change the land use designations or zoning of the Revised Project.

3.7.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project

3.7.4.1 Physically Divide an Established Community
The Certified FEIR previously identified that the Approved Project would not propose facilities that could divide an established community. The Revised Project is proposed in the same area analyzed in the Certified FEIR and includes a reduction in the number of new wells and to only locate those wells in Well Site B. Upon implementation, the water facilities would continue to support and enhance existing land uses by providing the opportunity for a more secure and stable water source. Well Site B, where the two new wells for the Revised Project would be located, would consist of facilities that would extend below the ground surface and protrude 2 feet above the ground surface. The proposed Well Site B is located within unincorporated Santa Barbara County and would not divide existing agricultural operations adjacent to the site. Impacts with respect to established communities would be less than significant.

Therefore, with respect to established communities, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.7.4.2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating and Environmental Effect.

Similar to the Approved Project as analyzed in the Certified FEIR, the Revised Project area would be consistent and compatible with adjacent agricultural lands ( Policy LUASYV- 3 of the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan) 168, including appropriate buffers and fences to protect adjacent agricultural operations from potential conflicts and claims of nuisance. The Revised Project would be located within the same footprint as the Approved Project, and contained within Well Site B. Thus, implementation of the Revised Project would still not conflict with the County’ s Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, policy, or regulations or divide existing agricultural operations adjacent to the site. Therefore, impacts from the Revised Project regarding land use plans and regulations would be less than significant and with respect to land use plans and regulations, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 167 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations, January 2019 (Map). 168 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations, January 2019 (Map). 511

3.7.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
The City reviews all proposed projects against development and design guidelines that regulate permitted uses, development density, building heights, site and building design, transportation demand, and neighborhood protection.

The County of Santa Barbara reviews all proposed projects within the unincorporated County areas and towns of Ballard, Los Olivos, and Santa Ynez. All projects are evaluated for consistency with citywide and countywide land use controls, development standards, and applicable plans and policies, including those of the general plan, during project review and the approval process.

Therefore, similar to the Certified FEIR Project, cumulative impacts regarding conflict with applicable land use plans and development criteria would be less than significant with the Revised Project. Therefore, with respect to cumulative impacts regarding land use, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.7.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the Certified FEIR. No mitigation measures would be required for the Revised Project.

3.7.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project would be less than significant, similar to those disclosed in the Certified FEIR.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any new project or cumulative impacts to land use beyond that which was disclosed in the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.
512

3.8 RECREATION

3.8.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR
The Certified FEIR identified the following existing City Parks and Parks in the Santa Ynez Valley Community Area: Alisal Commons, Hans Christian Andersen Park, Solvang Park, and Sunny Fields Park.

Alisal Commons is a passive use area that encompasses 2-acres of gently sloping land adjacent to Alisal Road overlooking the Santa Ynez River and Alisal Ranch Property. The Hans Christian Anderson Park is 50+-acre day-use Park is bounded by Chalk Hill road to the north and State Highway 246 to the south. The park is located 0.4 mile from the center of town and is within walking distance from Solvang Elementary School. The 1.14-acre Solvang Park is centrally located on Mission Drive (State Highway 246) between First Street and Park Way. The 6.2-acre Sunny Fields Park is in the northeast portion of the city on Alamo Pintado Road.

3.8.1.1 Substantially Damage Recreational Resources or Facilities Construction Impacts
As part of the Approved Project evaluated in the Certified FEIR, the City proposed to install new wells to withdraw groundwater along the Santa Ynez River in Wells Sites A and B. The proposed well sites are not located within or near existing recreation facilities, and therefore they would not substantially damage any such facilities. There would be no impact.

The proposed water treatment facility would be constructed within the Alisal Commons area and would be sited on the existing pedestrian path, which would prevent use of the path for recreational use. As part of the Certified FEIR Project, the pedestrian path would be relocated, which would reduce the Project’ s potential to damage this recreational resource. In addition, the potential construction impacts associated with the proposed water treatment facility in the Alisal Commons area were analyzed throughout the Certified FEIR. The impact would be less than significant.

The proposed water right Permit 15878 would allow the Existing Reach of Diversion to extend downstream of Alisal Bridge to include the Additional Reach of Diversion for approximately 1.5 miles, which could result in installation of wells in more areas adjacent to the Santa Ynez River.

The changes to water right Permit 15878 would also allow for continued pumping of groundwater up to a maximum rate of 5 cubic feet per second ( cfs); however, according to modeling by Stetson Engineers and presented in Appendix 5.1 of the Certified FEIR, the continued groundwater pumping would not have a substantial effect on surface flows. To the extent that the pumping could indirectly affect other areas used for fishing, those impacts were evaluated in Section 5.3 of the Certified FEIR and Section 3.3:
513
Fisheries Resources in this Addendum. The Certified FEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant Class III).

Impacts During Operation
Implementation of the Approved Project would not directly result in short-term or long-term growth in the City’ s water service area, and therefore, it would not directly increase the use of recreational facilities.

Implementation of the Approved Project could result in construction of facilities within recreational areas such as the Alisal Commons open space area. The operational impacts associated with the Approved Project, including the proposed wells and water treatment plant, are analyzed throughout the Certified FEIR. With implementation of the Certified FEIR proposed mitigation measures, potential operational impacts to the environment would be reduced to less than significant.

3.8.1.2 Result in a Substantial Reduction in Recreational Use or Activities Construction Impacts
The Certified FEIR Project would result in the construction of new water facilities ( including wells and pipelines), a water treatment facility, and planned storage facilities for the City’s water distribution system. To the extent that construction activities would take place in or near existing recreation areas, closure of some areas may be required. Although the trail and park closures would be temporary and limited in area, construction activities could result in temporary public access impacts. Although a temporary inconvenience, the Certified FEIR determined impacts to recreational amenities during construction would be less than significant.

As part of the Certified FEIR Project, the City proposed to install six (6) new wells to withdraw groundwater along the Santa Ynez River in Well Sites A and B. Well installation would require drilling equipment adjacent to the Santa Ynez River, which is considered a recreational area. The Certified FEIR concluded the construction activities could pose a safety threat to potential recreational uses of the river and the impact would be potentially significant. Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC-1 proposed in the Certified FEIR which requires implementation of public safety measures in designated parks, open space and recreational areas during construction would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant.

The proposed water treatment plant site would involve construction activities within Alisal Commons open space area. The construction activities would include a staging area adjacent to the proposed plant site where equipment and materials would be stored. Construction activities would occur over a ninemonth period, during which the public would not have full access to the existing pedestrian trails or entire open space area. The potential for public to encounter hazards during construction in the Alisal Commons 514
open space area and trails represents a potentially significant impact. The Certified FEIR determined Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC- 1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Class II).

At the time of the Certified FEIR, the proposed Additional Reach of Diversion would result in the modification of the City’ s existing water right Permit 15878 to extend the Existing Reach of Diversion to include areas downstream of Alisal Bridge. Changes to the water right Permit 15878’ s Existing Reach of Diversion would not affect any recreational uses within the City. There would be no impact.

The Certified FEIR stated there are no recreational facilities within unincorporated areas of the County that would be impacted by any of the proposed components of the Water System Master Plan Update.

As such, the Certified FEIR concluded there would be no impact.

Impacts During Operation
The Approved Project would also result in the construction of new water facilities and planned storage facilities for the City’ s water distribution system. If any of these facilities are located within areas designated by the City for recreational use, operation of the facilities could reduce use of these areas for recreation. However, the Certified FEIR stated structures to be constructed under the Project would be limited in size and the operation of the facilities would not preclude the use of parks and open space.

The Approved Project provided for new wells that would be located adjacent to the Santa Ynez River in Wells Sites A and B downstream of Alisal Bridge. Depending upon the final location of these individual wells, they could intrude into recreational areas along the Santa Ynez River that are used for passive recreation purposes. However, the Certified FEIR stated each well would be located within an approximate 10-foot by 10-foot fenced enclosure, which would not preclude the use of the river areas for recreational enjoyment. The impacts of the proposed wells would be less than significant.

The proposed water treatment plant would comprise about 0.05 acre of area or 3 percent of the 2-acre Alisal Commons open space area and would displace some of the existing pathways that access the area.

Although the new water treatment facility would displace the existing pedestrian path, the Certified FEIR stated the path would be relocated as part of the Project and operation of the facility would not preclude use of this path for passive recreational use in the long-term. Therefore, operation of the proposed water treatment plant would not result in a substantial reduction in the use of the Alisal Commons open space area for recreation. The Certified FEIR determined impacts would be less than significant.

The Approved Project’ s proposed Additional Reach of Diversion would result in the operation of additional wells downstream of the Existing Reach of Diversion as provided for in water right Permit 15878. The 515
Certified FEIR Project concluded the Additional Reach of Diversion downstream of Alisal Bridge would have no impact on recreational uses.

3.8.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative context for the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts on recreation is the Santa Ynez Valley. Growth in the City and the Santa Ynez Valley would increase the demand for recreational areas and facilities, which could lead to the degradation of facilities and require construction and allocation of new facilities.

The Certified FEIR determined the Project would result in temporary impacts related to construction within recreational areas in the City and within unincorporated Santa Barbara County areas, but would not have a substantial effect on long term use of recreational areas. The Approved Project would not result in any population growth that could contribute to demands for recreational areas. Therefore, the Certified FEIR concluded the Project would not contribute to any cumulative use of recreational facilities and the cumulative impact would not be considerable ( Class III).

3.8.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the river wells component of the Approved Project but it would be constructed and operated a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes up to two new river wells in Well Site B instead of up to 6 new wells in Well Site A and B under the Approved Project. The Revised Project also proposes diverting 1,368 AFY at a maximum rate of 2.84 cfs, which is reduced from the 1,980 AFY at 5 cfs proposed in the Approved Project. The reach of diversion has been substantially reduced and shifted downstream from 19,500 feet in the Approved Project to a Final Reach of Diversion of 8,060 feet in the Revised Project. Additionally, other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.8.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations There have been no changes to the city, state, or local plans and regulations to recreation for the City of Solvang.

3.8.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
Since the Certified FEIR, Checklist Questions for Recreation have been updated in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. To determine whether the Revised Project would result in new impacts or an 516
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as analyzed by the Certified FEIR, provided below is an update to the environmental information and analysis of the impacts of the Revised Project using the Recreation Checklist Questions from the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist.

3.8.4.1 Increase in the Use of Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities Such That Substantial Physical Deterioration of the Facility Would Occur or be Accelerated.

Construction Impacts
As mentioned, number of wells would be reduced from six (6) to two (2) and contained only within Well Site B. Though the Santa Ynez River is utilized for passive recreation purposes, the proposed well sites are not located within or near existing recreation facilities, and therefore they would not substantially damage any such facilities. There would be no impact. No water treatment facility is proposed for the Revised Project, as such the pedestrian path would not be blocked and relocated under the Revised Project.

Additionally, the reach of diversion has been substantially reduced and shifted downstream from the proposed 19,500 feet in the Approved Project to a Final Reach of Diversion of 8,060 feet in the Revised Project, which would result in less impacts to the Santa Ynez River that is utilized for passive recreation purposes. Currently, the City has elected to limit its proposed river well pumping to a maximum of 1,368 AFY and its diversion rate to 2.84 cfs (compared to 1,980 AFY and 5 cfs in the Approved Project) and cease pumping from existing Well 3 (and 7A) if flows at the Alisal Bridge drop below 1.5 cfs. To the extent that the pumping could indirectly affect other areas used for fishing, those impacts are evaluated Section 3.3:

Fisheries Resources, which concluded impacts would be less than significant and would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts beyond that which was disclosed in the Certified FEIR. The Revised Project construction would not result in any population growth that could contribute to the increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities that would substantially physically deteriorate a facility. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, impacts from the Revised Project on recreational facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to the increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities during construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
As the Revised Project is within the footprint of the Certified FEIR, implementation of the Revised Project would also not directly result in short-term or long-term growth in the City’s water service area, and therefore, it would not directly increase the use of recreational facilities. The Santa Ynez River is utilized 517
for passive recreation purposes. Implementation of the Revised Project could result in the placement of wells within recreational areas along the Santa Ynez River that are used for passive recreation purposes.

However, operation of the two (2) proposed wells would not result in any population growth that could contribute to the increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities that would substantially physically deteriorate a facility.

With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC-1, potential operational impacts to the environment would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, with respect to the increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities during operation, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.8.4.2 Include Recreational Facilities or Require the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Which Might have an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment.

Construction Impacts
Though the Santa Ynez River is utilized for passive recreation purposes, the proposed well sites under the Revised Project are not located within or near existing recreation facilities, and therefore they would not substantially damage any such facilities. Construction activities would still take place in or near existing recreation areas, closure of some areas may be required; however, only limited to recreational areas located near Well Site B. Well installation would require drilling equipment adjacent to the Santa Ynez River which is considered a recreational area. Temporary construction that would take place in or near existing recreational areas would not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities as the Revised Project would not result in any population growth that could contribute to the demand for recreational facilities, or the permanent loss of recreational facilities. Though construction would be temporary in nature, construction activities could pose a safety threat to potential recreational users of the river; the impact would be potentially significant. However, the Revised Project would also comply with Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC-1. With the imposition of Mitigation Measure REC-1, the impacts from the Revised Project would be less than significant.

As the Revised Project is smaller than the Approved Project, within the analyzed footprint of the Approved Project, and no longer includes the water treatment plant, the Revised Project would not require temporary trail and park closures within a limited area. Nevertheless, construction activities could pose a safety threat to potential recreational users of the river; the impact would be potentially significant.

However, the Revised Project would also comply with Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC- 1. With the 518
imposition of Mitigation Measure REC-1, the impacts related to including or requiring construction or expansion of recreational facilities from the Revised Project would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to recreational facilities and areas, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
Implementation of the Revised Project would not directly result in short-term or long-term growth in the City’ s water service area, and therefore, it would not directly increase the use of recreational facilities.

The Revised Project would not result in any population growth or permanent loss of recreational facilities, and therefore, it would not contribute directly to demand for recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The water treatment plant proposed in the Approved Project within the Alisal Commons open space area is no longer proposed with the Revised Project. Thus, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in construction of facilities within the Alisal Commons open space area. However, implementation of the Revised Project could result in the placement of wells within recreational areas along the Santa Ynez River that are used for passive recreation purposes. The operation of the two (2) proposed wells would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The operational impacts associated with the Revised Project, including the proposed wells, are analyzed throughout this addendum. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, identified in the Certified FEIR, Mitigation Measure REC-1 which requires implementation of public safety measures in designated parks, open space and recreational areas potential operational impacts to the recreational resources would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, with respect to recreational resources, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.8.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would result in temporary impacts related to construction within recreational areas in the City and within unincorporated Santa Barbara County areas, but would not have a substantial effect on long term use of recreational areas. The Revised Project would not result in any population growth that could contribute to demands for recreational areas. The Certified FEIR concluded the Certified FEIR would not contribute to any cumulative use of recreational facilities. As the Revised Project is a scaled down version of the river wells aspect of the Approved Project within the footprint analyzed under the Certified FEIR, the Revised Project would not contribute to any cumulative use of recreational facilities and the cumulative impact would not be significant similar to the Approved 519
Project. Therefore, with respect to recreational resources, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.8.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measure previously identified in the Certified FEIR would be applied to the Revised Project.

No additional mitigation is necessary. Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC- 1 is as follows:

REC-1 The City shall require implementation of public safety measures in designated parks, open space and recreational areas during construction including:

Construction signs shall be posted at construction work sites to alert the public of construction activities, and
Safety fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the staging area(s) and construction zone(s) to prevent recreational users and pedestrians from accessing the area(s). If fencing a portion of a designated park, open space or recreational area for construction and/ or staging is not feasible, the park, open space or recreational area shall be closed for the duration of construction until all equipment and materials are removed and the site is inspected by the City to determine its ability to be designated safe for recreation uses.

3.8.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project would be less than significant, similar to those impacts disclosed in the Certified FEIR.

Mitigation measure REC-1 identified in the Certified FEIR shall be implemented for recreational areas.

Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC-1 would still apply to the Revised Project. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure REC-1, potential impacts to the recreational resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts to recreational resources beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 520

3.9 NOISE

3.9.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR

3.9.1.1 Exposure of Persons to, or Generation of, Noise Levels in Excess of Standards
Construction Impacts
Per the Solvang Municipal Code, the City restricts the hours of construction activities from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays. At the time of the Certified FEIR, the County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code restricted hours of construction activities from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. The Certified FEIR stated noise levels generated during the construction phases of the six proposed wells in proposed Well Site A could affect nearby residential land uses. The distance of the construction site to the nearest residential use in the City from the proposed Well Site A would be a minimum of 50 feet. At this distance, noise levels during construction could reach 87 dB(A), which would exceed the City’s threshold and would be considered a significant impact.

Construction of well facilities within the proposed Well Site B located within unincorporated Santa Barbara County would be subject to the County’ s noise threshold of 65 dB(A) and construction within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors could exceed 65 dB(A). However, there are no sensitive receptors located near the proposed Well Site B that would be affected. Impacts would be less than significant.

Grading and construction activities, which involve the use of backhoes, tractors, scrapers, graders, and trucks, would be carried out within open space areas along the Santa Ynez River to the south existing residences.

As part of the Approved Project, a water treatment plant was planned to be constructed within the City owned Alisal Commons open space. Existing residences that would be most sensitive to temporary construction noise are located to the north and east of the proposed water treatment plant. Grading and construction activities for the water treatment plant, which involve the use of backhoes, tractors, scrapers, graders, and trucks, would be carried out within Alisal Commons open space, near existing residences. Construction noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses in the City would be considered significant. However, construction noise of any component of the Approved Project would be of limited duration (i.e., short term), be restricted to daytime hours in accordance with the Solvang Municipal Code and in accordance with the County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Certified FEIR imposed Mitigation Measure NOS- 1, see below, which includes a number of standard construction practices to reduce noise levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOS- 1 construction related noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (Class II). 521
Impacts During Operation
Implementation of the Approved Project would direct the future construction of water distribution pipelines, storage reservoirs, and emergency generators. Pipes and storage reservoirs would not generate operational noise. Emergency generators would only operate for short periods of time and during emergencies, such as local power outages.

Operational noise would mainly consist of stationary noises, since the Master Plan Update is not a trafficgenerating project, with the exception of occasional maintenance- related traffic. Thus, significant traffic related noise impacts would not occur. Additionally, all facilities would be constructed according to industry standards and according to the City noise ordinance requirements and would not be considered excessive or significant.

Operations at storage reservoirs are not considered significant noise generators. Storage reservoirs would require scheduled maintenance, which would result in short-term random incidences that would not result in an increase of ambient noise levels within the surrounding area. Thus, impacts associated with storage reservoirs would not be significant.

Operation of the six proposed new wells to be located in Well Sites A and B would not generate a discernible amount of noise, as the pumps would be submerged. The wells would operate only when needed, which usually occurs during peak water use hours (early morning) and during the peak months summer). Typical pump station noise attenuation features, include the following: (1) enclosing the pumps within a concrete and masonry building, fully grouted with appropriate wall thickness; ( 2) sound attenuating panel insulation installed on the roof; and ( 3) ventilation system designed to mitigate the noise from normal pump operation. Noise enclosures provide as much as 10 to 15 dB(A) attenuation depending on the type of noise absorption materials. As such, operational noise impacts generated by the wells would be less than significant.

An existing SWP pump station is located at the Alisal Commons open space. Under the Approved Project the City had planned to design and construct a package water treatment plant adjacent to this existing pump station between Alisal Road and the Alisal Glen housing subdivision. The treatment plant site would have been approximately 150 feet by 200 feet, and surrounded by a 7-foot-high decorative block wall.

Noise generated during the water treatment facility operation could directly impact adjacent residential dwelling units, with the closest property line approximately 100 feet to the west. Primary on-site noise sources include the booster pumping station, the treatment plant and associated pumps.

Acoustic information would depend on the number of pumps and the pieces of equipment. Typical noise levels for 75-horsepower pumps/ motors, a ventilation system and a 300 kilowatt diesel engine generator 522
would range from 80 dB(A) to 100 dB(A). With all equipment operating in unison the noise would combine for a noise level of approximately 100 dB(A) at 3 feet from the source. The Certified FEIR stated, for a conservative analysis, as the distance doubles, sound levels would decrease 6.0 dB(A). Assuming the nearest package treatment unit is a distance of 50 feet to the decorative wall, noise levels would be 76 dB(A). The decorative wall would act as a barrier between the treatment plant and the nearest residence, conservatively reducing noise approximately 5 dB(A) to 71 dB(A). The distance to the nearest residence from the decorative wall would be 100 feet. As a result, the noise level at the nearest residence, from the decorative wall, would be 66 dB(A) which is below the City’s General Plan guideline for noise generated on-site (75 dB(A)). As such, operational impacts generated by the water treatment plant would be less than significant.

Where possible, the distribution pipeline routes are located along existing public rights-of-way and planned roadways to maintain accessibility and minimize the costs of acquiring pipeline easements.

Operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in significant noise impacts since these facilities would be located below ground surface, except for valves, etc.

The noise associated with the implementation of the Approved Project and operation of the six (6) new wells and water treatment plant would be less than significant with the implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS- 2 (Class II).

3.9.1.2 Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels
Construction Impacts
The Certified FEIR stated a conservative analysis of potential vibration impacts was analyzed approximately 15 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. The construction of the proposed wells in Wells Site A would be located a minimum of 50 feet south of the nearest residential dwelling unit and further in Well Site B. The water treatment plant would have been located in the Alisal Commons open space area and a minimum of 50 feet south and east of the nearest sensitive residential dwelling unit. The Certified FEIR determined vibration would result in less than significant impacts approximately 15 feet from a sensitive receptor. Vibrations from construction equipment would not be noticed from drilling and construction of the proposed wells or construction of the water treatment plant as the proposed wells and water treatment plant would be located at sufficient distances ( greater than 15 feet) from nearby sensitive receptors to reduce vibration impacts. Impacts would be less than significant ( Class III). 523
Impacts During Operation
No generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would occur during operation of the City’s wells or water treatment plant or through the pipelines and storage reservoirs. The Certified FEIR concluded there would be no impact (Class III).

3.9.1.3 A Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity
Construction Impacts
In general, construction activities would result in short-term increases in ambient noise levels for all components of the Approved Project. As noted during construction, there could be increases in the local noise environment for the construction of wells at Wells Site A and the proposed water treatment in the Alisal Commons open space area. Noise from these construction activities could temporarily increase local ambient noise above acceptable levels and exceed the City noise limits. As such, impact would be significant albeit temporary. Construction impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS-1 (Class II).

Impacts During Operation
Operation of wells within the proposed Well Sites A and B would be subject to the applicable City and County noise threshold of 65 dB(A). Wells would be operated using submersible pumps, which would limit noise generation during operation. Well operation is largely dependent on the level of waters in reservoirs, which are dependent on demand in the City’ s system and the weather. As such, noise would be episodic in nature and generally not steady over long periods of time. Therefore, operational of wells within the proposed Well Sites would not result in a substantial increase in the permanent ambient levels.

The operation of the water treatment plant would coincide with the operation of the proposed wells.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in significant noise impacts since these facilities would be located below ground surface, except for valves, etc. Sound associated with pipeline maintenance would result in short-term, random incidences that would not result in an increase of ambient noise levels within the surrounding area. In addition, pipeline work would be limited to daylight hours in order to avoid disturbing any sensitive receptors. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

At the nearest residential property line to the west of the water treatment plant, the proposed operational noise levels would be 66 dBA. the estimated noise at the nearest residential property line to the west would still be below the City’ s Noise Element threshold of 75 dB(A). Therefore, the Certified FEIR determined the proposed water treatment plant would result in less than significant impacts. 524
The Certified FEIR stated according to the noise measurement conducted on October 18, 2011, the existing ambient noise was measured at 49.5 CNEL approximately 50 feet east of the residential property line nearest to the water treatment plant site. As discussed above, the proposed operational noise levels at the residential property line nearest to the proposed water treatment plant would be 66 dB(A). The Certified FEIR considered this a conservative analysis, as the plant would operate only during operation of the proposed wells to treat water entering the City’s distribution system. Furthermore, the estimated noise at the nearest residential property line to the west would still be below the City’ s Noise Element threshold of 75 dB(A). Therefore, the Certified FEIR concluded the proposed water treatment plant would result in less than significant impacts to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ( Class III).

3.9.1.4 A Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity
Construction Impacts
Please refer to impact analysis above in Section 3.9.1.1. The Certified FEIR determined construction impacts would potentially be significant but would be less than significant with implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS-1 (Class II).

Impacts During Operation
As discussed in the Certified FEIR, operational noise would mainly consist of stationary noises, since the Master Plan Update is not a traffic-generating project, with the exception of occasional maintenancerelated traffic. Thus, significant traffic related noise impacts would not occur. Additionally, all facilities would be constructed according to industry standards and according to the City noise ordinance requirements. As such, the Certified FEIR determined impacts would less than significant.

Operations at storage reservoirs are not considered significant noise generators. Storage reservoirs would require scheduled maintenance, which would result in short-term random incidences that would not result in an increase of ambient noise levels within the surrounding area. Thus, impacts associated with storage reservoirs would be less than significant.

Where possible, the distribution pipeline routes are located along existing public rights-of-way and planned roadways to maintain accessibility and minimize the costs of acquiring pipeline easements.

Operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in significant noise impacts since these facilities would be located below ground surface, except for valves, etc. Sound associated with pipeline maintenance would result in short-term, random incidences that would not result in an increase of ambient noise levels within the surrounding area. In addition, pipeline work would be limited to daylight hours in order to avoid 525
disturbing any sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Certified FEIR concluded potential impacts would be less than significant.

Please refer to summary of analysis above in Section 3.9.1.1 in regard to noise associated with operation of the six proposed new wells and the water treatment plant. Operation of wells within the proposed Well Sites A and B would be subject to the applicable City and County noise threshold of 65 dB(A). Well operation is largely dependent on the level of waters in reservoirs, which are dependent on demand in the City’s system and the weather. As such, noise would be episodic in nature and generally not steady over long periods of time. Therefore, operation of wells within the proposed Well Sites would not result in a substantial increase in the permanent ambient levels. The proposed wells would operate only during peak hours and peak months when water demand is greatest. The operation of the water treatment plant would coincide with the operation of the proposed wells. Impacts would be less than significant.

The amount of noise radiated from the wall surfaces and ventilation system of any given pump housing is controllable over a reasonably wide range of frequencies. Typically, a pump station housing is designed to limit near field (within a close radius) noise levels ranging from 85 to 93 dB(A). Pump stations located within 500 feet of sensitive receptors ( i.e., residential homes, schools, or hospitals) should be designed not to exceed the 60 CNEL at the sensitive receptor property line per the City’s noise standards. Should pump stations be located within the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Barbara, the facilities located within 500 feet of a sensitive use should be designed not to exceed 65 dB(A) at the property line of the sensitive receptors. Note that these noise limitations are for steady state, base load operations, and exclude startups, shutdowns, and off-normal or emergency conditions. With implementation of the noise reduction measures where applicable, The Certified FEIR concluded impacts from the pump stations would be less than significant. Operation impacts would be less than significant ( Class III).

Operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in significant noise impacts since these facilities would be located below ground surface, except for valves, etc. Sound associated with pipeline maintenance would result in short-term, random incidences that would not result in an increase of ambient noise levels within the surrounding area. In addition, pipeline work would be limited to daylight hours in order to avoid disturbing any sensitive receptors. Potential impacts from pipeline facilities would be less than significant.

3.9.1.5 Cumulative Impacts
According to the Master Plan Update at the time of the Certified FEIR, the City was approximately 464 residential dwelling units from General Plan buildout conditions. Specific projects proposed within the City would be required to undergo project-level review. Further, each individual development proposal within the City would be required to comply with applicable goals, policies and actions contained in the General Plan to assure that potential impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. 526
Because of the location of potential other projects along pipeline routes, the Approved Project in combination with other projects under construction may result in cumulative short-term noise impacts.

Each project located along a pipeline route would be required to implement construction mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible. Given the relatively short-term duration of construction activities, and the City’s and County’ s restrictions on periods when construction can occur 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays per the Solvang Municipal Code and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays per the County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code), as well as the incorporation of standard noise control measures, the Certified FEIR concluded potential cumulative noise impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Long-term noise impacts associated with the Approved Project are considered to be less than significant.

As such, the Approved Project would not contribute to cumulative noise level increases within the Project area and would result in less than significant cumulative noise impacts ( Class III).

3.9.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the river wells component of the Approved Project but it would be constructed and operated a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes up to two new river wells in Well Site B instead of up to 6 new wells in Well Site A and B under the Approved Project. The Revised Project also proposes diverting 1,368 AFY at a maximum rate of 2.84 cfs, which is reduced from the 1,980 AFY at 5 cfs proposed in the Approved Project. The Certified FEIR stated the water lines for Well Site B would consist of connector pipes, a transmission pipe, and looping pipes, with a total pipe length of approximately 1.7 miles. The transmission pipe would range in diameter from 10- to 18-inches; with the size of the pipe segment dependent on the water flow. The Certified FEIR considered construction of the pipeline infrastructure would occur in both Well Sites A and B and extend between both Well Sites to the proposed connection point with the City’ s existing water distribution system. The new wells for the Revised Project would connect to a new 12-inch diameter waterline to be constructed from the new wells approximately 2,000 feet length to the City’ s existing water distribution system at the western end of Fjord Drive. Other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.9.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations At the time of the Certified FEIR, the County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code restricted hours of construction activities from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. Per Chapter 9.16.040 of the County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code, the County of Santa Barbara currently prohibits construction between the 527
hours of 8:00 PM of any day and 7:00 AM of the following day.169 There have been no additional changes or updates to city, state, or local plans and regulations to noise.

3.9.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
Since the Certified FEIR, Checklist Questions for Noise have been updated in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. To determine whether the Revised Project would result in new impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as analyzed by the Certified FEIR, provided below is an update to the environmental information and analysis of the impacts of the Revised Project using the Noise Checklist Questions from the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist.

Additionally, the Certified FEIR Initial Study (see Appendix 1.0 of the Certified FEIR) determined no impact would occur as a result of the Approved Project related to exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels for projects located within an airport land use plan and exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip. These checklist questions were not carried forward to the Certified FEIR for analysis. Because the footprint of the Revised Project is less than that of the Approved Project and within the original footprint analyzed under the Certified FEIR, this Addendum also screens out current CEQA Appendix G Checklist questions regarding exposure of people residing or working in the Project are to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan from analysis of the Revised Project.

3.9.4.1 Generation of a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of other Agencies.

Construction Impacts
Noise impacts due to construction of the Revised Project wells would be temporary given the short-term construction of the wells. Per the Solvang Municipal Code, the City restricts the hours of construction activities from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays. The County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code prohibits construction between the hours of 8:00 PM of any day and 7:00 AM of the following day. 170 No water treatment plant would be constructed as part of the Revised Project. Similar to the Certified FEIR Project, where possible, the distribution pipeline routes for the Revised Project are located along existing public 169 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Chapter 9.16.040 Construction Work at Night Prohibited, http:// qcode.us/ codes/ santabarbara/? view=desktop& topic=9-9_16, Accessed November 2021. 170 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Chapter 9.16.040 Construction Work at Night Prohibited, http:// qcode. us/ codes/ santabarbara/? view=desktop& topic=9-9_16, Accessed November 2021. 528
rights-of-way and planned roadways to maintain accessibility and minimize the costs of acquiring pipeline easements. As discussed in the Certified FEIR, Well Site B location is within unincorporated Santa Barbara County, where construction within 1,600 feet of a sensitive receptor cannot exceed 65 dB(A). Noise from these construction activities could temporarily increase local ambient noise above acceptable levels and exceed the City and County noise limits. However, there are no sensitive receptors located within 1,600 feet of the proposed Well Site B that would be affected. Therefore, noise from the construction of the two (2) proposed wells in Well Site B would not exceed 65 db(A) at a sensitive receptor.

Earth-grading equipment can generate some of the loudest noise levels of all standard construction equipment and would be used during construction of the Revised Project. However, pile drivers, the loudest source of noise, would not be used during the construction of the Revised Project. Given the distribution pipeline routes for the Revised Project are located along existing public rights-of-way and planned roadways to maintain accessibility and minimize the costs of acquiring pipeline easements, unattenuated noise levels at residences could exceed 95 dB(A) at edge of the nearest property line.

Construction noise levels at pipeline adjacent noise-sensitive land uses in the City would be considered significant. Construction noise levels would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS- 1. Therefore, with respect to ambient noise levels during Revised Project construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
The Certified FEIR discussed that operation of the six proposed wells to be located at both sites would not generate a discernible amount of noise, as the pumps would be submerged, which would limit noise generation during operation. The wells would operate only when needed, which usually occurs during peak water use hours ( early morning) and during the peak months ( summer). Well operation is largely dependent on the level of waters in reservoirs, which are dependent on demand in the City’ s system and the weather. As such, noise would be episodic in nature and generally not steady over long periods of time. Wells would be operated using submersible pumps, which would limit noise generation during operation. Operation of wells within the proposed Well Site B would be subject to the applicable City and County noise threshold of 65 dB(A). Given that the Revised Project is proposing only two wells within Well Site B that would pump less AFY and at lower diversion rates compared to the Approved Project, the two 2) new wells under the Revised Project would generate less noise than the six (6) wells analyzed in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, the operation of wells within the proposed Well Site B would not result in a substantial increase in the permanent ambient levels. Operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in significant noise impacts since these facilities would be located below ground surface, except for valves, 529
etc. In addition, pipeline work would be limited to daylight hours in order to avoid disturbing any sensitive receptors. No water treatment plant is proposed in the Revised Project. Impacts would remain less than significant. As such, operational noise impacts generated by the Revised Project would be less than significant. Although the Revised Project would have less effect on substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Revise Project, the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOS-2 would document that the reduced direct impacts of the Revised Project would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to ambient noise levels during Revised Project operation, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.9.4.2 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels
Construction Impacts
As mentioned in the Certified FEIR, the wells would be located at sufficient distances ( greater than 15 feet) from nearby receptors, resulting in less than significant vibrational impacts. The Revised Project wells would be located in Well Site B, which is further than 50 feet from the nearest residential dwelling.

Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to groundborne vibration or noise levels during Revised Project construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
Similar to the analysis in the Certified FEIR, no generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would occur during operation of the Revised Project’ s wells or through the pipelines. There would be no impact. Therefore, with respect to groundborne vibration or noise levels during Revised Project operation, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.9.4.5 Cumulative Impacts
At General Plan buildout conditions, specific projects proposed within the City would be required to undergo project-level review. Further, each individual development proposal within the City would be required to comply with applicable goals, policies and actions contained in the General Plan to assure that potential impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. 530
As discussed in the Certified FEIR, because of the location of potential other projects along pipeline routes, the Revised Project in combination with other projects under construction may result in cumulative shortterm noise impacts. Each project located along a pipeline route would be required to implement construction mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible. Given the relatively short-term duration of construction activities, and the City’s and County’ s restrictions on periods when construction can occur, as well as the incorporation of standard noise control measures, potential cumulative noise impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Long-term noise impacts associated with the Revised Project are considered to be less than significant. As such, the Revised Project would not contribute to cumulative noise level increases within the Project area and would result in less than significant cumulative noise impacts. Therefore, with respect to cumulative noise impacts, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.9.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR, as identified above, will also be applied to the Revised Project. The Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures are as follows:

Construction
NOS-1 For all demolition and construction activities, noise-attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains as low as possible during construction.

The following measures shall be incorporated into contract specifications to reduce the impact of construction noise:

Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition.

Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible.

Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Fridays and excluding Saturday, Sunday, state or national holidays as required by the City of Solvang to minimize disruption to sensitive uses. When construction work is conducted within the County of Santa Barbara, construction activities shall be scheduled between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday only.
531
Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.

Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.

All stationary construction equipment ( e.g., air compressor, generators, impact wrenches, etc.) shall be operated as far away from residential uses as possible and shall be shielded with temporary sound barriers, sound aprons, or sound skins.

Construction- related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 20 minutes.

Residences within 500 feet of a construction area shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing, at least 48 hours prior to construction. The City and the contractor shall designate a noise disturbance point of contact that would be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The point of contact shall determine the cause of the complaint and ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact number for the noise disturbance shall be conspicuously placed on construction site fences and written into the construction notification schedule sent to nearby residences.

Operations
NOS- 2 Pump stations and water treatment facilities located within 150 feet of sensitive receptors i.e., residential homes, schools, or hospitals) shall have a site-specific noise study conducted to verify that the design and operation will meet the City or County noise standards. Note that these noise limitations for operations are for steady state, base load operations, and exclude startups, shutdowns, and off-normal or emergency conditions.

3.9.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project would be less than those considered in the Certified FEIR.

Mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR shall be implemented during the construction phase of the Revised Project ( Mitigation Measures NOS-1 above) shall be implemented. The Revised Project would continue to implement Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS-1, to reduce construction impacts to less than significant. Any noise associated with operation of the Revised Project would be less than significant with the implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure NOS-2. 532
Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any new project or cumulative impacts to noise beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.10.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR

3.10.1.1 Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonable, Foreseeable Upset, and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment Construction Impacts
Construction of components under the Master Plan Update would require ground disturbing activities and drilling equipment. Hazardous materials used by this equipment would include oils, grease, or fuels that could spill during construction activities. If any of these hazardous materials are released accidentally, they could impact soil and groundwater quality or result in an adverse health effect to construction workers, the public, or the environment. The Certified FEIR stated compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to good housekeeping policies for handling and storage of chemicals such as equipment fuels would reduce the potential for release. If visual contamination or chemical odors are detected during construction, construction workers would be required to stop work immediately and notify the County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Units. The Certified FEIR concluded compliance with applicable laws and regulations would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant (Class III).

Impacts During Operation
The proposed changes to the City’s water right Permit 15878 would not have any impacts related to hazards. Hazardous waste would not be generated by operation of the Approved Project (Class III).

3.10.1.2 Cumulative Impacts
The Certified FEIR stated future development in the City may potentially involve the use of some number of hazardous materials during construction and/ or operation and may generate hazardous wastes. The potential use and transport of hazardous materials in the City’s service area and surrounding area could potentially expose persons and/ or the environment to hazardous materials. The applicants of future projects would be required to comply with regulating agencies to implement appropriate measures that 533
reduce the risk associated with the use and transport of hazardous materials. The Approved Project would not result in significant impacts associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment. As a result, the Certified FEIR determined the Project’ s contribution to exposure to hazards in combination with other development under the general plan would not be cumulatively considerable Class III).

3.10.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the river wells component of the Approved Project but it would be constructed and operated at a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes two new river wells located in Well Site B. The Revised Project also proposes a lower maximum acre feet per year diversion and lower diversion rate than the Approved Project. Other components of the Master Plan Update are the same ( abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.10.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations There have been no changes or updates to city, state, or local plans and regulations to hazards or hazardous materials for the City of Solvang.

3.10.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
Since the Certified FEIR, Checklist Questions for Hazards and Hazardous Materials have been updated in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. To determine whether the Revised Project would result in new impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as analyzed by the Certified FEIR, provided below is an update to the environmental information and analysis of the impacts of the Revised Project using the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Checklist Questions from the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist.

Additionally, the Certified FEIR Initial Study (see Appendix 1.0 of the Certified FEIR) did not carry forward Hazards and Hazardous Materials Checklist questions related to creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area for projects located within an airport land use plan or within two 534
miles of a public airport or public use airport; resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area for projects within the vicinity of a private airstrip; implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands to the Certified FEIR for analysis. Because the footprint of the Revised Project is less than that of the Approved Project and within the original footprint analyzed under the Certified FEIR, this Addendum also screens out these current CEQA Appendix G Checklist questions from analysis of the Revised Project.

3.10.4.1 Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonable, Foreseeable Upset, and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment Construction
Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would still include the construction of proposed wells that would involve hazardous materials used by equipment; however, the number of wells have been reduced from six to two. The Revised Project would also pump these wells at a lower diversion rate and extract fewer acre feet per year. Construction of components under the Revised Project would require ground disturbing activities and drilling equipment. Hazardous materials used by this equipment would include oils, grease, or fuels that could spill during construction activities. Similar to the Approved Project under the Certified FEIR, the Revised Project would be required to comply with applicable regulations that would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, with respect to hazardous materials during construction of the Revised Project, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
Operation of the two (2) wells as part of the Revised Project would not generate any hazardous waste.

Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, with respect to hazardous materials during Revised Project operations, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.10.4.2 Cumulative Impacts
Future development in the City may potentially involve the use of some number of hazardous materials during construction and/ or operation and may generate hazardous wastes. The potential use and 535
transport of hazardous materials in the City’ s service area and surrounding area could potentially expose persons and/ or the environment to hazardous materials. The applicants of future projects would be required to comply with regulating agencies to implement appropriate measures that reduce the risk associated with the use and transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in significant impacts associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment. As a result, consistent with the conclusions of the Certified FEIR Revised Project’ s contribution to exposure to hazards in combination with other development under the general plan would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, with respect to cumulative hazardous materials impacts, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.10.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the Certified FEIR for hazardous materials. No mitigation measures are required for the Revised Project.

3.10.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project would be less than significant, similar to those disclosed in the Certified FEIR.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 536

3.11 AESTHETICS

3.11.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR

3.11.1.1 A Substantial Effect on a Scenic Vista
Construction Impacts
The construction of the distribution system improvements under the Master Plan Update as part of the Approved Project would require the partial excavation of urban roadways, which may result in temporary aesthetic impacts to visual quality of the sites and surroundings. The construction activities would temporarily impact the views from roadways due to signage, traffic-control measures ( orange cones/ barrels), and construction equipment, and the activities would be noticeable to motorists, pedestrians, and adjacent property owners and businesses. Construction- related aesthetic impacts would generally last less than one week in any one location. Construction activities are generally a common and accepted feature of the urban environment. Additionally, upon completion of the construction activities, all pipelines would be permanently located underground and would have no impact on scenic vistas. A portion of the proposed distribution system would be located in rural areas, which would require excavation and construction activities in otherwise rural and/ or undeveloped areas. Construction activities in undeveloped areas such as this one may temporarily impact scenic vistas by removing vegetation and affecting topography. In accordance with the City’ s General Plan policies, development under the Master Plan Update should be integrated with the surrounding environment to the greatest possible extent. Although construction impacts would be temporary, the Certified FEIR concluded removing trees and vegetation in open space areas and otherwise affecting a scenic resource would be considered a potentially significant impact. To address these potentially significant impacts the Certified FEIR imposed Mitigation Measures AES- 1, AES- 2, and AES- 4. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures AES- 1, AES- 2, and AES- 4, impacts related to construction of the Approved Project would be less than significant.

Well construction within Well Site A and/ or Well Site B would require temporary use of drilling equipment, trucks, and a drilling rig within the floodplain of the Santa Ynez River, which is a natural scenic resource for the area. The exact location of any wells that may be needed is not known though the Well Sites A and B are comprised of undeveloped open space and natural areas. Construction activities would also include removing vegetation and grading the well sites and access roads if such roads (such as a fire road) are not already available for use. Although exact locations for wells are not known, views of Well Site A and Well Site B are available from public vantage points and could be considered a temporary scenic resources impact. Given the temporary nature of construction activities, the construction activities in themselves would not have an adverse impact on the Santa Ynez River scenic vista. 537
Construction of the proposed water treatment facilities pursuant to the Approved Project would have taken place within the City’ s Alisal Commons open space, near the Alisal Glen housing subdivision. Views of the Santa Ynez River scenic corridor are available from this location, though views are screened by distance, topography, and vegetation. Construction activities at the site would have occurred over a ninemonth period of time and involve grading and construction of foundation and retaining wall, building construction, and installation of utilities and treatment module. Building construction and system installation will involve various work trucks and construction worker vehicles. A construction staging area would be established adjacent to the treatment plant site in the open area south of the existing SWP Booster Pumping Station building. The construction activities would impact the views from roadways due to signage and construction equipment, and the activities would be noticeable to motorists, pedestrians, and adjacent property owners. Impacts from construction of the wells and the water treatment facility would be potentially significant. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES2, and AES-4, impacts related to construction of the Approved Project would be less than significant ( Class II).

Impacts During Operation
The proposed wells under the Approved Project would have been located within Well Sites A and B along the Santa Ynez River, though the exact location of the wells within each area was not identified. Views of Site A are available from the east by viewers on Alisal Road, and from the north by viewers on Fjord Drive.

The proposed well sites would not be visible to homes above the golf course due to the great distance, and because the wells sites would be small and would blend in with the floodplain background.

The visual aspects of the proposed wells would each consist of a well pump and wellhead located on a 12- to 24-inch concrete well pad measuring 25 by 25 feet. Each well would be surrounded by a 10- by 10-foot chain link enclosure that would be 6 feet in height. Wells are relatively small facilities that appear as small pipes within concreted casings and can be housed within aesthetically appealing enclosures of about 100 square feet. The wellhead and enclosures are less than 6 feet in height, so they are low profile in height and would not impede views of surrounding areas. The proposed wells would resemble the existing wells.

To the extent that the wells could permanently interfere with views of the Santa Ynez River, the impact would be potentially significant. To address these impacts the Certified FEIR imposed Mitigation Measure AES-3. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure AES-3, impacts related to operation of the Approved Project would be less than significant ( Class II).

The proposed water treatment plant would have been situated in the Alisal Commons open space, northwest of the existing SWD Pump Station. Total area required for the water treatment plant would be approximately 30,000 square feet and the facility would be housed in a single- story structure less than 538
1,152 square feet in size and located behind a 7-foot-high decorative wall. Open space would have surrounded the structure; however, an existing pump facility for the Central Coast Water Agency SWP pipeline is currently located in the open space area. The Santa Ynez River floodplain is located more than 1,000 feet south of the site and views of the river are largely screened by existing topography and the SWD Pump Station. Therefore, development of the proposed water treatment building would not have blocked or preclude views of a scenic vista. The impact would be less than significant.

3.11.1.2 Substantially Damage Scenic Resources
Construction Impacts
The Certified FEIR identified that the City is located 4 miles away from the nearest State Designated Scenic Highway Corridor along State Route 154. It is also located 3 miles east of U.S. Route 101, which is eligible for the “Scenic Highway” designation. The urban development within the City appears in the background of views from these highways, and individual structures are not easily distinguished from one another.

The scenic resources associated with these corridors include large open spaces and agricultural lands that appear in the foreground from the roadways. Given the proximity to the State Route 254 and U.S. Route 101, construction would appear as a part of the urban area and would not damage the scenic resources in the area. Impacts would be less than significant ( Class III).

Impacts During Operation
The dominant views from the State Route 154 and U.S. Rote 101 feature gentle slopes, grasslands, and agricultural lands in the Santa Ynez River valley. While urban development of the City can be seen in the background from these roadways, given the distance to the designated scenic highways, facilities proposed under the Approved Project would appear indistinguishable from the surrounding urban area of the City and would not damage the scenic resources in the area. For instance, views of the existing wells in the Santa Ynez River are not visible at all from these highways. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources associated with a state scenic highway corridor. Impacts would be less than significant Class III).

3.11.1.3 Substantially Degrade the Visual Character of Any Area Construction Impacts
Given the temporary nature of construction activities, the construction activities in themselves would not have an adverse impact on the Santa Ynez River scenic vista.

Construction of the proposed wells would require construction equipment, trucks, and a drilling rig within the floodplain of the Santa Ynez River, which is a natural scenic resource for the area. The exact location 539
of any wells that may be needed is not known though the Well Sites A and B are comprised of undeveloped open space and natural areas. Construction activities would also include removing vegetation and grading the well sites and access roads if such roads ( such as a fire road) are not already available for use.

Temporary views of this construction equipment would not significantly degrade the visual character in the area. However, construction activities associated with well installation could result in the removal of riparian vegetation near the Santa Ynez River, which would degrade the visual character of the well sites in the near term. This would be a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, and AES-4, impacts related to construction of the Approved Project would be less than significant ( Class II).

Construction of the proposed water treatment facility would take place within the Alisal Commons open space, near the Alisal Glen housing subdivision. Views of the Santa Ynez River scenic corridor are available from this location, though views are screened by distance, topography, and vegetation. Construction activities at the site would occur over a nine-month period of time and would involve grading and construction of foundation and retaining wall, building construction, and installation of utilities and treatment module. Building construction and system installation will involve various work trucks and construction worker vehicles. A construction staging area would be established adjacent to the treatment plant site in the open area south of the existing SWP Booster Pumping Station building. The construction activities would impact the views from roadways due to signage and construction equipment, and the activities would be noticeable to motorists, pedestrians, and adjacent property owners. Construction activities could significantly degrade the visual character in the area for this period of time, which would be considered a potentially significant. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures AES1, AES- 2, and AES- 4, impacts related to construction of the Approved Project would be less than significant Class II).

Impacts During Operation
Approved Project improvements associated with the distribution system would involve replacement of water pipelines, hydrants, and valves. Since pipelines are underground, implementation of these improvements would have no impact on visual character. Since existing hydrants would be simply replaced or would not be noticeable in the context of the surrounding urban development, no impacts to visual character from these components would occur.

The reservoir storage improvements would replace old cisterns with new reservoirs, replace waterlines, and relocate the Riley Road booster station adjacent to the new reservoir. Replacement of the old cisterns with new reservoirs would increase the size of the storage facility from 40,000 gallons of capacity to 400,000 gallons and would reconfigure the location of the reservoir to the Zone 1 hydraulic grade line. 540
The construction of a reservoir and booster station in the hillside area above Riley Road would change visual character of the hillside. Development of these components would represent a potentially significant impact to visual character due to grading and changes in topography, removal of vegetation and placement of a structure in a hillside location.

Landscaping around the reservoir tanks and along access roads could provide a visual buffer between the tanks and surrounding areas. For example, trees and/ or shrubs should be planted near the tanks to minimize the visual impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, aesthetic treatments, such as careful selection of the reservoir paint color (low-reflective and camouflaging) and the use of aesthetically pleasing fencing materials would further minimize impacts to scenic vistas. Impacts are potentially significant.

Views of Well Site A would be visible to viewers from the Alisal Bridge and Fjord Drive and would look similar to existing wells adjacent to the Alisal Bridge.

The proposed wells that would be located along the Santa Ynez River in both Wells Sites A and B would each consist of a well pump and wellhead located on a well pad, which would be surrounded by a chain link enclosure. The development of these structures in the context of the undeveloped river floodplain would degrade the views in the area. To the extent that the wells could permanently degrade the visual character of the Santa Ynez River, the impact would be potentially significant. This is considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure AES- 3, impacts related to operation of the Approved Project would be less than significant ( Class II).

Operation of the treatment plant in the Alisal Commons open space area would introduce a new man-made structure to the mostly natural setting of the area. The building would be highly visible to users of the area, who would pass within 30 feet of the building when using the sidewalk on the east side of the Alisal Commons open space area. The building would also be visible to residents located west. In contrast, the building would be partially obscured by a slope to viewers along Alisal Road.

The Certified FEIR determined the proposed building would not create a significant visual impact to the Alisal Commons open space setting for the following reasons: ( 1) the building would be small relative to the size of the entire open space area; ( 2) the building would be partially obscured by a slope; ( 3) the building would be located on the margins of the open space; ( 4) the building would not block views; and 5) the building would not be a foreign visual feature because it would be designed with architecture and color scheme to match the adjacent SWP Booster Pump Station building. As such, the visual character impact from the water treatment plant would be less than significant ( Class III). 541

3.11.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
At the time of the Certified FEIR, the City’s General Plan indicates that 497 additional residential units may be added to the City over the next 20 years. New development under the City’s General Plan would incrementally convert agricultural land or underdeveloped areas to residential uses and could result in significant impacts related to aesthetics. New development within the City would have the potential to significantly impact visual resources, which would be considered a significant cumulative impact. The components constructed under the Approved Project would appear minor compared to residential development in the City and all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant level with proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, the Certified FEIR would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to aesthetics. The impact would less than significant ( Class III).

3.11.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the Certified FEIR but it would be constructed and operated a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes up to two river wells in Well Site B (instead of the six new wells in either Well Site A or B proposed under the Approved Project). The Revised Project also proposes pumping 1, 368 AFY ( a reduction from 1,980 AFY proposed under the Approved Project) and a diversion rates 2.84 cfs (a reduction from the 5 cfs under the Approved Project)The Certified FEIR stated the water lines for Well Site B would consist of connector pipes, a transmission pipe, and looping pipes, with a total pipe length of approximately 1.7 miles. The transmission pipe would range in diameter from 10- to 18- inches; with the size of the pipe segment dependent on the water flow. The Certified FEIR considered construction of the pipeline infrastructure would occur in both Well Sites A and B and extend between both Well Sites to the proposed connection point with the City’ s existing water distribution system. The new wells would connect to a new 12-inch diameter waterline to be constructed from the new wells approximately 2,000 feet length to the City’ s existing water distribution system at the western end of Fjord Drive. Other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.11.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations There have been no changes or updates to city, state, or local plans and regulations to aesthetics for the City of Solvang.
542

3.11.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
The Certified FEIR Initial Study ( see Appendix 1.0 of the Certified FEIR) did not carry forward Aesthetics Checklist question related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area to the Certified FEIR for analysis. Because the footprint of the Revised Project is less than that of the Approved Project and within the original footprint analyzed under the Certified FEIR, this Addendum also screens out this current CEQA Appendix G Checklist question from analysis of the Revised Project.

3.11.4.1 A Substantial Effect on a Scenic Vista
Construction Impacts
The Revised Project proposes two (2) wells within Well Site B, compared to the six (6) wells within Well Sites A and B in the Certified FEIR Project. The Revised Project would require temporary use of drilling equipment, trucks, and a drilling rig within the floodplain of the Santa Ynez River, which is a natural scenic resource for the area. Well Site B is comprised of undeveloped open space and natural areas. The exact location of the two (2) wells within Well Site B is not known. Construction activities would also include removing vegetation and grading the well site and access roads if such roads (such as a fire road) are not already available for use. Although exact locations for wells is not known, views of Well Site B are available from public vantage points and could be considered a temporary scenic resources impact. Similar to the Approved Project, with implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, and AES-4, impacts related to construction of the Approved Project would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to scenic vistas during Revised Project construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
The Revised Project wells would be located within Well Site B along the Santa Ynez River, though the exact location of the wells is not yet known. The proposed well sites for the two (2) proposed wells would not be visible to homes above the golf course due to the great distance, and because the wells sites would be small and would blend in with the floodplain background.

The visual aspects of the wells were discussed in the Certified FEIR and discussed above. The proposed well design in the Revised Project is unchanged from that presented in the Certified FEIR. The wellhead and enclosures are less than six (6) feet in height, so they are low profile in height and would not impede views of surrounding areas. The proposed wells would resemble the existing wells. As mentioned, the 543
wells could permanently interfere with views of the Santa Ynez River, the impact would be potentially significant. To address these impacts the Revised Project would also comply with the Mitigation Measure AES-3 imposed by the Certified FEIR. With imposition of Mitigation Measure AES- 3, the impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to scenic vistas during Revised Project operations, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.11.4.2 Substantially Damage Scenic Resources Including, but not Limited to, Trees, Rock Outcroppings, and Historic Buildings Within a State Scenic Highway
Construction Impacts
As previously mentioned, the Certified FEIR identified that that scenic vistas and/ or scenic resources would not be significantly impacted by construction activities and all pipelines would remain permanently underground during operation. The City is located 4 miles away from the nearest State Designated Scenic Highway Corridor along State Route 154 and 3 miles east of U.S. Route 101, which is eligible for the “Scenic Highway” designation. The urban development within the City appears in the background of views from these highways, and individual structures are not easily distinguished from one another. The scenic resources associated with these corridors include large open spaces and agricultural lands that appear in the foreground from the roadways. Given the proximity to the State Route 254 and U.S. Route 101, construction of the Revised Project would appear as a part of the urban area and would not damage the scenic resources in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to scenic resources, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
The dominant views from the State Route 154 and U.S. Rote 101 feature gentle slopes, grasslands, and agricultural lands in the Santa Ynez River valley. While urban development of the City can be seen in the background from these roadways, given the distance to the designated scenic highways, facilities proposed under the Revised Project would appear indistinguishable from the surrounding urban area of the City and would not damage the scenic resources in the area. Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources associated with a state scenic highway corridor. Impacts on scenic resources would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to scenic resources, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, 544
and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.11.4.3 Substantially Degrade the Visual Character of Any Area Construction
As previously mentioned, construction activities the Revised Project would be completed over approximately 20 months. Given the temporary nature of construction activities, the construction activities in themselves would not have an adverse impact on the Santa Ynez River scenic vista.

Construction of the proposed wells would require construction equipment, trucks, and a drilling rig within the floodplain of the Santa Ynez River, which is a natural scenic resource for the area. Given the temporary construction for each well, the views of this construction equipment would not significantly degrade the visual character in the area. However, construction activities associated with well installation could result in the removal of riparian vegetation near the Santa Ynez River, which would degrade the visual character of the well sites in the near term. This would be a potentially significant impact. To address these impacts the Revised Project would also comply with the Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, and AES- 4 imposed by the Certified FEIR. With imposition of Mitigation Measure AES-1, AES-2, and AES-4, the impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to degradation of the visual character during Revised Project construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Operation
The Revised Project includes pipelines that would connect the new wells to the existing distribution system. Since pipelines are underground, implementation of these improvements would have no impact on visual character.

The Revised Project wells that would be located along the Santa Ynez River in Well Site B would each consist of a well pump and wellhead located on a well pad, which would be surrounded by a chain link enclosure. The development of these structures in the context of the undeveloped river floodplain would degrade the views in the area. Landscaping alterations would occur with the Revised Project but would be minimal and less than those proposed in the Certified FEIR Project as the Revised Project would reduce the number of new wells proposed ( from six to two). The Revised Project also does not include a water treatment plan. To the extent that the wells could permanently degrade the visual character of the Santa Ynez River, the impact would be potentially significant. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

To address these impacts the Revised Project would also comply with the Mitigation Measure AES-3 545
imposed by the Certified FEIR. With imposition of Mitigation Measure AES-3, the impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to scenic vistas during Revised Project operations, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.11.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The Revised Project would be withing Well Site B analyzed in the Approved Project Similar to the Approved Project, the components constructed under the Revised Project would appear minor compared to residential development in the City and all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant level with mitigation measures imposed under the Certified FEIR. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to aesthetics. The impact would less than significant ( Class III) The Revised Project would not result in any new significant impact and no additional mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, with respect to cumulative aesthetics during Revised Project operations, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Revisions to Mitigation Measures
The Revised Project would follow the mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR with the following minor revisions in strikeout and underlined:

AES-1 Prior to commencement of grading activities for each phase of project development associated with the 2011 Master Plan Update Revised Project, including proposed wells to be located in Wells Sites A and B and the proposed water treatment plant located in Alisal Commons open space, the City shall prepare a Landscape Plan that identifies specific measures to reduce the visual impacts associated with the visible above ground facilities, including the strategic planting of native trees, shrubs, and other vegetation to buffer the views of the structures.

AES- 2 For projects associated with the 2011 Master Plan Update, including proposed wells to be located in Wells Sites A and B and the proposed water treatment plant located in Alisal Commons open space, with the potential to significantly degrade visual character during construction, construction contracts shall consider locating staging areas where opportunities for screening with existing topography and vegetation can be maximized. 546
Security fencing shall be placed around staging and construction areas to hide the area from public view.

AES- 3 Reservoir tanks and booster pump stations shall be painted with low-reflective paint in a camouflaging color that blends with the surrounding environment.

AES-4 Prior to the commencement of grading activities for the proposed wells to be located in Wells Sites A and B and the proposed water treatment plant located in Alisal Commons open space and any water reservoirs ( tanks) improvements, the Project engineer for the grading and construction of the reservoir tanks shall provide to the City Engineer a grading plan that incorporates landform grading techniques and minimizes changes to topography. If bench-cuts into hillsides are required, then landform grading techniques shall be incorporated that preserve as much of the natural topography as possible and create cuts that blend into the surrounding hillside areas. Additionally, graded areas shall be revegetated upon completion of construction activities with native seeds and/ or plants in order to restore previously vegetated areas to pre-construction conditions to the greatest extent practicable.

Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts
Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to those disclosed in the Certified FEIR.

Mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR shall be implemented for aesthetic resources Mitigation Measure AES-1 through AES-4; see above). With implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure AES-1 through AES-4, Revised Project impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any new project level or cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 547

3.12 ENERGY

3.12.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR

3.12.1.1 Result in a Substantial Increase, of More than 10 Percent, in Net Electricity Consumption
Construction Impacts
Master Plan Update
Projects constructed under the Master Plan Update would require fossil fuels to power construction equipment and vehicles. Electricity would not be relied upon heavily for construction activities. The Certified FEIR identified that construction of the wells and water treatment facilities would consume less than 0.001 percent of total electricity. If the generators used for construction ran on electricity, the electricity demand would be about 742 kilowatt-hours each day. The Certified FEIR stated assuming construction activities occur five days a week for five years, the overall electricity demand for this phased would be approximately 0.89 megawatt- hours ( see Table 3.12-1: Estimated Construction Energy Demand). Note that this calculation is an overestimate of actual construction demands for electricity because the construction timeline is likely to be shorter ( several hundred feet of pipeline constructed in one day), and the diesel generators may be used instead of electrical generators.

Table 3.12-1
Estimated Construction Energy Demand
Construction Activity Energy Demand ( MWh)
Infrastructure 0.89
Well Drilling and Installation 0.03
Water Treatment Plan 0.07
Total 0.99
Source: See Certified FEIR Section 5.12: Energy, Table 5.12-1: Estimated Construction Energy Demand.

At the time of the Certified FEIR, PG& E was projected to deliver approximately 99,109 GWh to its customers during 2012. Therefore, the Certified FEIR determined construction of the Approved Project’ s components would consume less than 0.001 percent of total electricity PG& E would deliver in 2012.

Moreover, construction of electricity infrastructure improvements in the City would have similar impacts to the proposed Approved Project. The Certified FEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant Class III).
548
Proposed Wells and Water Treatment Facilities
Construction of the wells would require operation of construction equipment, trucks, and a drilling rig.

After well development is complete, each well pump would be tested for 24 hours, for one to two days.

A portable diesel engine and generator would power the well pumps. Overall, well drilling, completion, development, and testing would require about 5 days at each well site. Construction and testing activities for new wells under the Approved Project would demand a total of approximately 0.033 megawatt- hours.

Construction activities for the proposed water treatment facilities would involve grading, building construction, and installation of utility connections and treatment modules. Construction activities would require the use of a generator that could be electric and would be completed in a nine-month period.

Construction of the proposed water treatment facilities would result in a demand of

0.067 megawatt- hours.

At the time of the Certified FEIR, PG& E is projected to deliver approximately 99,109 GWh to its customers during 2012. Therefore, the Certified FEIR determined construction of the wells and water treatment facilities would consume less than 0.001 percent of total electricity PG& E would deliver in 2012. Impacts would be less than significant ( Class III).

State Water Right Permit
The proposed revisions to the City’ s water right Permit 15878 would allow for an extension in the Existing Reach of Diversion to include an area approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Alisal bridge ( Extended Reach of Diversion) that would enable well installation. There would be no energy related impacts with extending the Existing Reach of Diversion ( Class III).

Impacts During Operation
Proposed Wells and Water Treatment Facilities
The Approved Project provided for the development of new wells (up to six) that, in combination with the City’ s existing two operating wells, would provide the City with a total of eight potentially active wells.

The proposed wells would be capable of providing an average of 300 gallons per minute (gpm) or 0.67 cfs each, for a total of 1,980 AFY with a maximum extraction of up to 5 cfs. Additionally, the proposed new wells would be designed to produce up to 400 gpm (0.89 cfs) each on a long-term continuous basis. The energy (electricity) needed for an electrical well pump varies considerably, but is conservatively estimated 549
at a maximum of 210 megawatt- hours (MWh) per year for each of the six wells operating at 400 gpd for 24 hours a day, for a total of 1,260 MWh per year. 171
The proposed water treatment plant would have an initial capacity of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) or

3.09 cfs and would be designed to allow for the addition of a third parallel treatment train of 1 MGD capacity to bring the total treatment plant capacity to 3 MGD ( 4.64 cfs) in the future, if necessary. The energy ( electricity) needed for the water treatment plant is estimated at 330 MWh per year, assuming a capacity of 3 MGD. 172 The total electricity consumption for operating the new well pumps and water treatment plant would be approximately 1,590 MWh per year, or 1.59 GWh per year as shown in Table

3.12-2: Estimated Operational Energy Demand of the Certified FEIR.

Table 3.12-2
Estimated Operational Energy Demand of the Proposed Project Source Energy Demand ( MWh)
Well Pumps 1,260
Treatment Plant 330
Total 1,590
Source: Section 5.12: Energy of the Certified FEIR.

At the time of the Certified FEIR, PG& E was projected to deliver approximately 115,293 GWh to its customers per year by 2022. Therefore, the Certified FEIR determined the new wells and water treatment plant would consume less than 0.001 percent of total electricity PG& E would deliver in 2022. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed wells and water treatment plant would be sized to meet future water demands from growth buildout) under the City’ s General Plan. Additionally, future development in the City would be required to incorporate water conservation measures as required by the Municipal Ordinance and recommended in the General Plan Policy 2.a.

The Certified FEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant ( Class III). 171 Goleta Water District, Facility Plan, Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant, GWD Project No. 00.3309, (2004) 11-3. A typical well might use as much as 2,000 kilowatt-hours ( kWh) per million gallons of water produced and pumped up to system pressure at hydraulic grade level equal to 230 feet. Half of the kWh value was assumed for the Project assuming a 50 percent lower hydraulic grade level.
172 Goleta Water District, Facility Plan, Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant, GWD Project No. 00.3309, ( 2004) 11-2. This is based on an average of 300 kWh per million gallons.
550

3.12.1.2 Require or result in the construction of electrical power generation facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
Construction Impacts
The Approved Project would result in the construction of new water distribution and storage facilities, wells and a water treatment facility for the City’s water distribution system. As part of the Approved Project, six new wells would be constructed and operated, and electrical conduit would be installed along with the water lines to deliver power to each well. Installation of electrical cables is also a component of the proposed water treatment plant construction.

The potential construction impacts that would result from implementation of the Approved Project were analyzed throughout the Certified FEIR. Mitigation measures in other sections of the Certified FEIR were proposed to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur as result of construction. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, potential construction impacts to energy would be reduced to less than significant impacts. This would be considered Class II or Class III, impacts depending on the specific issues.

Impacts During Operation
The Certified FEIR identified that operation of the water system requires electricity to distribute water to customers, the proposed distribution and storage facilities, would not in themselves consume electricity.

Therefore, impacts to electricity under the Approved Project would be less than significant ( Class III).

3.12.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
Although the City was nearly at its projected buildout at the time of the Certified FEIR, the Certified FEIR stated future growth in the City is anticipated to result in increased demand on energy sources and energy production by PG& E. The City would implement policies and building codes that require energy efficient developments in the future. However, the demand for energy would increase as the City grows, which will likely lead to impacts on energy resources.

Potential cumulative impacts related to the Certified FEIR and past, present, and probable future projects were analyzed in each of the environmental topical sections in this EIR. Each section if the Certified FEIR contained analysis and a determination of the potential cumulative impacts discussion. The Certified FEIR did not identify any significant cumulative impacts related to energy (Class III). 551

3.12.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the Certified FEIR but it would be constructed and operated at reduced capacity with respect to the proposed river wells. The Revised Project proposes up to two river wells in Well Site B (instead of the six new wells in either Well Site A or B proposed under the Approved Project). The Revised Project also proposes pumping 1, 368 AFY ( a reduction from 1,980 AFY proposed under the Approved Project) and a diversion rates 2.84 cfs (a reduction from the 5 cfs under the Approved Project). The Certified FEIR stated the water lines for Well Site B would consist of connector pipes, a transmission pipe, and looping pipes, with a total pipe length of approximately 1.7 miles. The transmission pipe would range in diameter from 10- to 18-inches; with the size of the pipe segment dependent on the water flow. The Certified FEIR considered construction of the pipeline infrastructure would occur in both Well Sites A and B and extend between both Well Sites to the proposed connection point with the City’ s existing water distribution system. The new wells for the Revised Project would connect to a new 12-inch diameter waterline to be constructed from the new wells approximately 2,000 feet length to the City’ s existing water distribution system at the western end of Fjord Drive. Other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.12.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations There have been minor updates to the Enforcement Procedures for the Renewables Portfolio Standard for Local Publicly Owned Electric Utilities ( RPS POU Regulations), adopted by the California Energy Commission ( CEC) in December 2020, were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), effective July 12, 2021. 173 The current and continuous implementation of the RPS is that the program requires all electric load serving entities to procure 60 percent of its electricity portfolio from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. 174 According to the California Energy Commission ( CEC), in a low demand case, PG& E is projected to deliver approximately 84,979 gigawatt- hours ( GWh) to its customers in 2025. By 2027, when the Revised Project wells are anticipated to be completed and operational, PG& E’s demand is expected to be approximately 84,742 GWh. 175 In a high demand case, PG& E is projected to deliver 173 California Energy Commission. Renewable Portfolio Standard. https:// www.energy.ca.gov/ programs-andtopics/ programs/ renewables- portfolio- standard. Accessed October 2021. 174 California Energy Commission. Renewable Portfolio Standard. https:// www.energy.ca.gov/ programs-andtopics/ programs/ renewables- portfolio-standard. Accessed October 2021. 175 California Energy Commission. 2019 IEPR Workshops, Notices and Documents. California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Revised Forecast. CED 2019 Baseline Forecast - LSE and BA Tables Low Demand Case - CORRECTED Feb 2020 TN-232310. https:// www.energy. ca.gov/ data-reports/ reports/ integrated- energy- policy-report/ 2019-integrated- energy- policyreport/ 2019-iepr. Accessed November 2021. 552
approximately 100,068 GWh in 2025 and 102,131 GWh in 2027. 176 PG& E is prepared to meet this demand. For a conservative estimate, the Revised Project’ s energy demand was compared to the low demand energy forecast for PG& E.

As discussed in Section 3.6.3, above, the County of Santa Barbara ECAP was updated in May 2015. The ECAP, which seeks to reduce the County of Santa Barbara’ s GHG emissions through implementation of selected emission reduction measures ( ERMs) with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the unincorporated county by 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. Additionally, the Strategic Energy Plan SEP) for the County of Santa Barbara was completed in August 2019. The objective of the SEP is to address resiliency concerns and stimulate local renewable energy development in three ways:

1. Identifying total resource potential for various types of renewable energy, including solar, wind, hydro, biomass/ biogas, and geothermal power, as well as specific hotspots for potential future development

2. Creating a list of priority sites for renewable energy development throughout the county

3. Developing a set of strategies tackling barriers to renewable energy in diverse program areas ranging from drafting regulatory frameworks to creating new financing mechanisms. 177

3.12.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
Since the Certified FEIR, Checklist Questions for Energy have been updated in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. To determine whether the Revised Project would result in new impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as analyzed by the Certified FEIR, provided below is an update to the environmental information and analysis of the impacts of the Revised Project using the Energy Checklist Questions from the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. 176 California Energy Commission. 2019 IEPR Workshops, Notices and Documents. California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Revised Forecast. CED 2019 Baseline Forecast - LSE and BA Tables High Demand Case - CORRECTED Feb 2020 TN-232311. https:// www.energy.ca.gov/ data-reports/ reports/ integrated- energy-policy-report/ 2019-integrated- energy-policyreport/ 2019-iepr. Accessed November 2021. 177 Sustainability Division County of Santa Barbara. Strategic Energy Plan for the County of Santa Barbara. August 2019. https:// www. countyofsb. org/ csd/ asset. c/ 327. Accessed December 2021. 553

3.12.4.1 Result in a Potentially Significant Environmental Impact due to Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources, during Project Construction or Operation
Construction Impacts
As shown in Table 3.12-3: Estimated Construction Energy Demand of the Revised Project, construction of the Revised Project would require less electricity demand compared to the Certified FEIR. As mentioned above, in a low demand case, PG& E’ s demand is expected to be an approximately 84,979 GWh in 2025 when construction is expected to commence. Construction of the Revised Project would consume less than 0.000035 percent or a negligible amount of total electricity PG& E would deliver in 2025. The Revised Project is a scaled back version of the river wells portion of the Approved Project. There would only be two wells located in Well Site B and no water treatment plant. Overall, the total amount of electricity consumption used for the construction of the wells would be negligible for the Revised Project.

Construction impacts would remain less than significant with the Revised Project and no additional mitigation measures would be required. Thus, the Revised Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Revised Project construction, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Table 3.12-3
Estimated Construction Energy Demand of the Revised Project Source Energy Demand ( GWh)
Certified FEIR Project 0.99
Revised Project 0.03
Exceeds Certified FEIR? No
Note: The energy demand for the Revised Project were calculated utilizing the same rate in the Certified FEIR ( see Section

5.12 of the Certified FEIR).

Impacts During Operation
As shown in Table 3.12-4: Estimated Operational Energy Demand of the Revised Project, operation the Revied Project would require less electricity demand compared to the Certified FEIR. Operation of the Revised Project would consume less than 0.5 percent or a negligible amount of the 84,742 GWh total electricity PG& E would deliver in 2027 when construction would be completed and operation would 554
commence. The Revised Project only proposes two new river wells and no water treatment facility; therefore, the amount of total electricity consumed would be less than previously identified in the Certified FEIR for the Approved Project, which was concluded to be less than 0.001 percent. Operation of the water system requires electricity to distribute water to customers, the proposed distribution and storage facilities, would not in themselves consume electricity. The Revised Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Revised Project operation, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Table 3.12-4
Estimated Operational Energy Demand of the Revised Project Source Energy Demand ( MWh)
Certified FEIR Project 1,590
Revised Project 420a
Exceeds Certified FEIR? No
a Similar to Certified FEIR, assumed each well pump would require a maximum of 210 MWh per year to operate.

Note: The energy demand for the Revised Project were calculated utilizing the same rate in the Certified FEIR ( see Section 5.12 of the Certified FEIR.

3.12.4.2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
The Revised Project is a scaled back version of the river wells portion of the Approved Project, and the total amount of electricity consumption used for the construction and operation of the wells would be negligible ( see Section 3.12.4.1, above). The operation of the Revised Project water system requires electricity to distribute water to customers, the proposed distribution and storage facilities, would not in themselves consume electricity. The Revised Project, as a project that proposes two ( 2) wells and infrastructure, would not conflict or obstruct with any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, including the County of Santa Barbara ECAP and SEP. The Revised Project would also comply with the CEC and applicable local policies. Therefore, with respect to conflicts or obstruction of any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 555

3.12.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Although the City is nearly at its projected buildout, future growth in the City is anticipated to result in increased demand on energy sources and energy production by PG& E. The City would implement policies and building codes that require energy efficient developments in the future. However, the demand for energy would increase as the City grows, which will likely lead to impacts on energy resources.

Potential cumulative impacts related to the Revised Project and past, present, and probable future projects were analyzed in each of the environmental topical sections in Certified FEIR and in this Addendum. Please refer to each section regarding a determination of the potential cumulative impacts discussion. Therefore, with respect to cumulative energy impacts, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.12.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures was previously identified Certified FEIR; none are needed for the Revised Project:

3.12.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than those considered in the Certified FEIR.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts to energy resources beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR for the proposed Project.

Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant impacts as analyzed in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, with respect to energy, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.
556

3.13 UTILITIES/ SERVICE SYSTEMS

3.13.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR

3.13.1.1 Require or Result in the Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities The Approved Project included installation of new wells west of Alisal Bridge to allow the City to extract Santa Ynez River underflow at the rate (up to 5 cfs) allowed under water right Permit 15878. The added pumping capacity would allow the City to make the new wells its priority water source and would be used in conjunction with other supplies ( such as SWP or exchanges with ID No. 1) for the purpose of providing a reliable source to the water users within the City’s water service area.

Further, the City determined that in addition to existing Wells 3 and 7A, the most advantageous location to divert the water from a hydro geologic standpoint would be downstream from the existing City’ s wells and the Existing Reach of Diversion to an area identified as the “Additional Reach of Diversion,” as shown in Figure 2.0-5: Proposed Future Wells Site Areas.

Distribution System Improvements
The Approved Project recommended that the City implement an annual waterline, fire hydrant, and valve replacement program to replace aging infrastructure and undersized waterlines. Portions of the City's distribution piping contain cast iron and ductile iron portions and are susceptible to corrosion. The Approved Project would replace existing 2-inch diameter waterlines with 6-inch waterlines; replace or abandon a section of 4-inch galvanized steel piping in First Street, and replace the existing 8-inch waterline in Kronborg Drive from Elsinore Drive to Reservoir 2 inlet/ outlet pipe with 12-inch waterline. There would be temporary impacts associated with construction such as air quality, noise and traffic while work proceeded; these were addressed in other sections of Certified FEIR. There would be no interruption of water service during the repair and replacement construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

The typical life span of fire hydrants and valves is approximately 40 years. However, if properly maintained, fire hydrants and valves can function satisfactorily for many years beyond this. As proposed by the Approved Project, the City would inspect fire hydrants and valves over 50 years old, or known to be malfunctioning. Any hydrants that were determined by the City after inspection to not be able to properly function or show signs of fatigue that could lead to failure would be scheduled for replacement as needed. As with repairs and replacement of distribution pipelines, there would be temporary impacts associated with construction such as air quality, noise and traffic while work proceeded; these were addressed in other sections of the Certified FEIR. There would be no interruption of water service during the repair and replacement construction. Impacts would be less than significant. 557
Reservoir Storage Improvements
The City has a total of approximately 1.24 mg of gross water storage. The Master Plan Update, which is the Approved Project analyzed under the Certified FEIR, identified that the City should have 1.5 million gallons of total storage to meet operational, fire protection and emergency storage needs. Based on current storage capacity, the City has a deficit of 263,000 gallons of storage capacity. The Certified FEIR stated implementation of the Master Plan Update would construct additional storage of approximately 400,000 gallons in Zone 1 within the next 10 years or prior to any significant new development. In addition to providing the needed storage, the new reservoir would improve fire protection to all customers south of the Santa Ynez River, including the City's wastewater treatment plant. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, construction of this additional storage would improve conditions in the City.

Standby Power
The Master Plan Update notes that additional provisions for standby power will be needed to assure the maximum- day supply, and more emergency storage will also be required. Due to the fact that the City has redundant supply sources and emergency generators at some of its supply facilities, a target of 4 hours of emergency water storage based on the maximum day demand is the minimum recommended. The Certified FEIR stated installation of a permanent emergency generator at the SWP Pumping Station would improve water supply reliability by ensuring the City's ability to provide water service during power outages.

The Master Plan Update provides recommendations to assist and guide the City in continuing to provide reliable and reasonably priced water service to its present and future customers. Implementation of the Master Plan Update, whether it would include the replacement of old and aging infrastructure or the installation of the proposed wells and a water treatment plant has been analyzed throughout the EIR.

Impacts would be less than significant ( Class III).

3.13.1.2 Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Project from Existing Entitlements and Resources, or are New or Expanded Entitlements Needed
The Certified FEIR Update would provide for improvements to the City’s municipal water system. These improvements would replace existing infrastructure that is undersized, aged or damaged, to ensure a reliable source of water to the water users within the City’s municipal coverage area. As a result, impacts to water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant ( Class III). 558

3.13.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the Approved Project would provide for improvements to the City’s municipal water system. These improvements would replace existing infrastructure that is undersized, aged or damaged, to ensure a reliable source of water to the water users within the City’s municipal coverage area.

For issues that do not involve flow associated with the Santa Ynez River (such as aesthetics, land use and noise), the cumulative analysis considers the buildout of the City of Solvang’ s General Plan. The Approved Project provides for facilities and water supply to meet the anticipated demands of the City at buildout.

Therefore, those impacts related to non-flow issues were already analyzed under the thresholds for each section.

Other water users and projects along the Santa Ynez River downstream of Bradbury Dam would be required to provide their own water supply and infrastructure to meet water user demands. As part of the Master Plan Update process, the City is requesting the SWRCB to perfect its water right Permit 15878 to allow for diversion of 1,980 AFYAFYAFY from the Santa Ynez River. The perfection of this amount of water from the Santa Ynez River would allow the remainder of the unused allocation in the existing permit to be available to other water users downstream in future years. As a result, cumulative impacts to water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant ( Class III).

3.13.2 Description of the Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the Certified FEIR but it would be constructed and operated a reduced capacity with respect to the proposed river wells. The Revised Project proposes two new river wells (instead of the six proposed under the Approved Project) and be limited to Well Site B. The Revised Project proposes an maximum diversion of 1,368 AFY ( instead of the 1,980 AFY under the Approved Project) and lower diversion rate of 2.84 cfs (instead of the 5 cfs under the Approved Project). The Revised Project also proposes a reduced Reach of Diversion shifted downstream that is approximately 8, 060 feet, as opposed to the 19,500 feet in the Approved Project. Additionally, other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.13.3 Changes in City, State, or Local Plans and Regulations There have been no changes or updates to city, state, or local plans and regulations to utilities or service systems for the City of Solvang.
559

3.13.4 Comparison of the Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
Since the Certified FEIR, Checklist Questions for Utilities and Service Systems have been updated in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist. To determine whether the Revised Project would result in new impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as analyzed by the Certified FEIR, provided below is an update to the environmental information and analysis of the impacts of the Revised Project using the Aesthetics Checklist Questions from the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist.

Additionally, the Certified FEIR Initial Study (see Appendix 1.0 of the Certified FEIR) did not carry forward Utilities and Service Systems Checklist question related to exceeding wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; requiring or resulting in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; resulting in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’ s projected demand in addition to the provider’ s existing commitments; being served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’ s solid waste disposal needs; and compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste to the Certified FEIR for analysis.

Because the footprint of the Revised Project is less than that of the Approved Project and within the original footprint analyzed under the Certified FEIR, this Addendum also screens out these current CEQA Appendix G Checklist question from analysis of the Revised Project.

3.13.4.1 Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects
The Revised Project would include the construction of two additional river wells located in Well Site B, which would result in water supply improvements. The Revised Proposed Project would not include the construction of a water treatment plant but other aspects of the considered under the Approved Project would remain the same. The Revised Project is a scaled back version of the river wells portion of the Approved Project. There would only be two wells located in Well Site B and no water treatment plant.

Overall, the total amount of electricity consumption used for the construction of the wells would be negligible for the Revised Project. Operation of the water system requires electricity to distribute water to customers, the proposed distribution and storage facilities, would not in themselves consume electricity. The two (2) proposed wells would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or 560
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, with respect to water, wastewater facilities, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.13.4.2 Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Project and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development During Normal, Dry and Multiple Dry Years
The Revised Project, although reduced in size, would continue to provide improvements to the City’ s municipal system. As mentioned, the improvements would replace existing infrastructure that is undersized, aged or damaged, to ensure a reliable source of water to the water users within the City’s municipal coverage area during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts to water supply and infrastructure would remain less than significant. As a result, no additional mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, with respect to sufficient water supplies, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.13.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the Revised Project would provide improvements to the City’s municipal water system. For issues that do not involve flow associated with the Santa Ynez River (such as aesthetics, land use and noise), the cumulative analysis considers the buildout of the City’s General Plan. The Revised Project provides for facilities and water supply to facilitate meeting the anticipated demands of the City at buildout. Therefore, those impacts related to non-flow issues were already analyzed under the thresholds for each section.

Other water users and projects along the Santa Ynez River downstream of Bradbury Dam would be required to provide their own water supply and infrastructure to meet water user demands. The Revised Project includes a reduction of new wells from six to two river wells and be limited to Well Site B, which would result in less pumping (from 1,980 AFY in the Approved Project to 1,368 AFY) and lower diversion rates (from 5 to 2.84 cfs). At the time of the Certified FEIR, the SWRCB had 39 claims on file for the Santa Ynez River, including the Approved Project. Since that time, no new claims have been added to the SWRCB 561
files for the Santa Ynez River. 178 As the Revised Project is a scaled down version of the Approved Project within the same analyzed footprint and the number of claims have not changed since the time of the Certified FEIR, similar to the Approved Project, cumulative impacts to water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. Therefore, with respect to cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.13.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures was previously identified Certified FEIR; none are needed for the Revised Project.

3.13.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project would be less than those considered in the Certified FEIR.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in any project or cumulative new impacts to utilities and service systems beyond that which was disclosed and mitigated for as part of the Certified FEIR, and such impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified FEIR. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the Certified FEIR and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.14.1 Summary of Analysis in the Certified FEIR
At the time of the Certified FEIR, Tribal Cultural Resources was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and, therefore, analysis was not required. Although the Certified FEIR did not specifically respond to Tribal Cultural Resources Appendix G Checklist Questions, the Certified FEIR did discuss cultural resources and potential impacts to Native American tribes and resources in the analysis of Cultural Resources, see Section 3.4 of this Addendum. The Certified FEIR concluded the impact to archaeological resources would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant ( Class II).

Thus, Certified FEIR contained enough information about existing conditions and tribal cultural resources 178 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), eWRIMS database, https:// waterrightsmaps. waterboards. ca.gov/ viewer/ index.html?viewer=eWRIMS. eWRIMS_ gvh#. Accessed October 2021. 562
on the Approved Project site that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the potential effect of the Approved Project to tribal cultural resources was readily available to the public.

3.14.2 Description of Changes Resulting from Revised Project The Revised Project would be similar to the Approved Project but would be constructed and operated at a reduced capacity. The Revised Project proposes up to two (2) new river wells in Well Site B instead of up to six (6) new wells in Well Site A and B under the Approved Project. The Revised Project also proposes diverting 1,368 AFY at a maximum rate of 2.84 cfs, which is reduced from the 1,980 AFY at 5 cfs proposed in the Approved Project. The reach of diversion has been substantially reduced and moved downstream from 19,500 feet in the Certified FEIR Project to a Final Reach of Diversion of 8,060 feet in the Revised Project. Additionally, other components of the Master Plan Update are the same (abandon existing Well 7A located between Alisal Ranch and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 river wells) or no longer under consideration ( the previously planned water treatment plant is no longer proposed in the Revised Project) as analyzed in the Certified FEIR.

3.14.3 Changes in City, State or Local Plans and Regulations Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014. AB 52 requires a Lead Agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Project site, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The legislature declared that AB 52 "shall apply only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.” Since the Revised Project does not require a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration, AB 52 is not applicable to the Revised Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources was approved to be added to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist in 2016 in order to recognize that tribes have unique knowledge and information about sensitive resources important to tribal communities.

3.14.4 Comparison of Potential Impacts in the Certified FEIR with the Revised Project
As discussed in Section 3.14.1, at the time of the Certified FEIR, Tribal Cultural Resources was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and, therefore, analysis was not required. Although the Certified FEIR did not specifically respond to Tribal Cultural Resources Appendix G Checklist Questions, the Certified FEIR did discuss cultural resources and potential impacts to Native American tribes and 563
resources. To determine whether the Revised Project would result in new impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as analyzed by the Certified FEIR, provided below is an update to the environmental information and analysis of the impacts of the Revised Project using the Tribal Cultural Resources Checklist Questions from the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist.

3.14.4.1 Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, as Defined in PRC Section 21074 as a Site, Feature, Place, Cultural Landscape, that is Geographically Defined in Terms of the Size and Scope of the Landscape, Sacred Place, or Object with Cultural Value to a California Native American Tribe that is Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a Local Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
Construction
The Revised Project would be constructed and operated at a reduced capacity compared to the Approved Project. The Certified FEIR found that construction activities under the Approved Project could result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources due to the potential to encounter archaeological resources throughout the City but no recorded historic or Native American cemeteries were identified in the Project area for the proposed wells and water treatment facilities. The records search conducted in the Cultural Resources Memo for the Revised Project identified 71 previous studies that have been conducted within one mile of the Project area. Eight ( 8) of these studies included or intersected the Revised Project area. Thirty-six (36) cultural resources were identified within the records search area, one of which (42-002641/ CA-SBA-2641) is immediately adjacent to the proposed water main at the intersection of Fjord Drive and Glen Way. The Cultural Resources Memo did not identify the presence of historic or Native American cemeteries. Thus, this potential still exists for the Revised Project to encounter archaeological and tribal cultural resources during construction. For this reason, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant.

In addition, while no surface resources were identified at the Wells Sites A and B during the records search, the potential remains to impact subsurface tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities in Well Site B. However, with implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL- 2 through CUL- 4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant ( Class II). The adopted mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR include monitoring by an archaeologist and a local Santa Ynez Chumash tribal monitor of any construction involving ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, with respect to impacts to the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register of 564
Historical Resources or in a Local Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources from the Revised Project, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
Operation of facilities under the Revised Project would include two wells ( instead of six under the Approved Project) and no water treatment plant. As with the Approved Project, operation of the Revised Project would not involve any ground disturbance that could potentially uncover tribal cultural resources.

There would be no impact to tribal cultural resources from operation under the Revised Project or operation of the wells to be located in Well Site B. Therefore, with respect to impacts to the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a Local Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources from the Revised Project, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.14.4.2 Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, as Defined in PRC Section 21074 as a Site, Feature, Place, Cultural Landscape, that is Geographically Defined in Terms of the Size and Scope of the Landscape, Sacred Place, or Object with Cultural Value to a California Native American Tribe that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Construction
As discussed above, the Revised Project would be similar to the Certified FEIR but it would be constructed and operated at a reduced capacity. As stated by the Certified FEIR, on November 19, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of SB 18, the City notified Native American tribes in the area of its intent to proceed with the Master Plan Update and offered consultation for the Approved Project. A total of 20 tribes were contacted. On December 15, 2011, the City held a consultation meeting with representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. SB 18 is not required for the Revised Project because the Revised Project does not require an adoption or amendment of a city or county’ s general plan, which is the trigger for SB 565
18 consultation. Additionally, AB 52 consultation is not required for the Revised Project because the Revised Project does not require a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration.

The Certified FEIR found that construction activities under the Approved Project could result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources due to the potential to encounter archaeological resources throughout the City. Based on the records search conducted in the Cultural Resources Memo, the potential still exists for archaeological and tribal cultural resources to be encountered during the Revised Project construction. For this reason, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL- 2 through CUL-4, which includes monitoring by an archaeologist and a local Santa Ynez Chumash tribal monitor of any construction involving ground-disturbing activities, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, with respect to impacts to the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

Impacts During Operation
As discussed above, operation of facilities to be developed under the Approved Project would not involve any ground disturbance that could potentially uncover archaeological resources. As with the Approved Project, operation of the Revised Project would not involve any ground disturbance that could potentially uncover tribal cultural resources. There would be no impact from operation under the Revised Project or operation of the wells to be located in Well Site B. Therefore, with respect to impacts to the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.14.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
The Certified FEIR stated the vicinity of the City, including areas in the unincorporated Santa Barbara County is known to include both prehistoric and historic cultural resources. The potential discovery of previously unknown prehistoric and historic tribal cultural resources still exists for the Revised Project. As discussed above, the records search conducted in the Cultural Resources Memo for the Revised Project identified 71 previous studies that have been conducted within one mile of the Project area. Eight (8) of these studies included or intersected the Revised Project area. Thirty- six ( 36) cultural resources were 566
identified within the records search area, one of which (42-002641/ CA-SBA-2641) is immediately adjacent to the proposed water main at the intersection of Fjord Drive and Glen Way. The numerous laws, regulations, and statutes, on both the federal and state levels, which seek to protect cultural resources would apply to development within and outside the City. Implementation of mitigation measures identified above would reduce the Revised Project contributions to less than significant levels.

Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL- 1, CUL- 2, CUL- 3, CUL- 4 and CUL- 5 will reduce the Revised Project’ s contributions to cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts in the City of Solvang and Santa Ynez Valley community by ensuring that appropriate surveys are conducted to identify cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. The Revised Project’ s contribution to the cumulative impact would not be considerable. Therefore, with respect to cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR.

3.14.5 Revisions to Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures previously identified Certified FEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL- 2 through CUL- 5 are applicable to the Revised Project. The following Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures will be applied to the Revised Project:

CUL- 2 Prior to implementation of any Master Plan Update component that involves ground disturbance in native soils (with the exception of activities at Well Site A, Well Site B and the proposed water treatment plant location previously surveyed), the City of Solvang will arrange for the completion of a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment by a qualified Cultural Resources Professional. The qualified Cultural Resources Professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior' s professional qualification standards ( 36 Code of Federal Regulations 61). The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for each project under the Master Plan Update may include, but not be limited, to the following tasks, per the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Professional:

An archaeological/ historical/ cultural resources records search shall be conducted at the Central Coastal Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara to identify potential impacts that may be caused by the project.

Consultation shall occur with the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) in Sacramento regarding the possibility of special Native American sites that may be located in the vicinity of any project components shall be conducted. Consultation shall occur with local Native American representatives with knowledge regarding Native American sites in the Project area and shall be contacted in regard to each 567
construction phase if the qualified Cultural Resources Professional determines that there is the potential to impact Native American resources.

A field survey by the appropriate qualified Cultural Resources Professional shall be conducted. A qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to visually examine the ground surface for evidence of prehistoric ( Native American) or historic ( non-Native American) archaeological materials, or other potential historic features ( e.g., structures, bridges, mines, or wells), in areas where ground disturbance is proposed in native soils.

The results of any additional Phase I Cultural Resource Studies shall be documented in a technical report prepared according to Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) guidelines and OHP standards.

CUL-3 If potential archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities or construction, work at that location shall be immediately stopped and redirected until a City approved archaeologist and Native American representative are retained by the City to evaluate the significant of the find pursuant to further investigation. If the resources are found to be significant, the applicant shall be subject to further recommendations for mitigation as determined by the archaeologist in consultation with Native Americans and the Planning & Community Development Director.

CUL- 4 Any construction involving ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by an archaeologist and a local Santa Ynez Chumash tribal monitor. If evidence of the archaeological resource is exposed, the monitors may halt construction for a limited time to propose mitigation in consultation with the Project manager. When earth-disturbing work in the sensitive area is completed, monitoring will no longer be necessary, unless the archaeological resource or other cultural resources are encountered during construction.

CUL-5 In the event of a discovery of human bones, suspected human bones, or a burial, all excavation in the vicinity will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the bone is human. If the qualified archaeologist determines the bones are human, or if a qualified archaeologist is not present, the City will notify the Santa Barbara County Coroner before additional disturbance occurs. The City will ensure that the remains and vicinity of the find are protected against further disturbance until the Coroner has made a finding with regard to PRC 5097 procedures, in compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). If it is determined that the find is of Native American origin, the City will comply with the provisions of PRC Section 5097.98 regarding identification and involvement of the Native American Most Likely Descendant ( MLD).
568

3.14.6 Determination of the Potential Significance of Impacts Environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the impacts disclosed in the Certified FEIR.

The adopted mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR include monitoring by an archaeologist and a local Santa Ynez Chumash tribal monitor of any construction involving ground-disturbing activities.

The Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would still apply to the Revised Project. These mitigation measures require supplemental cultural resource studies for areas that may be impacted outside of the previously surveyed areas at Well Site B, as well as a mitigation measure stating that if any archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities work will immediately be stopped and redirected until the resources can be further investigated. Another adopted mitigation measure identified in the Certified FEIR includes Mitigation Measure CUL-4 or monitoring by an archaeologist and a local Santa Ynez Chumash tribal monitor of any construction involving grounddisturbing activities. Implementation of Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 would reduce any potential impacts from the Revised Project (which is limited to installing two new wells in Well Site B and associated infrastructure) to less than significant. Mitigation measures identified in the Certified FEIR shall be implemented for historical and archeological resources ( Mitigation Measures CUL1 through CUL- 4; see above). The Cultural Resources Memo did not identify the presence of historic or Native American cemeteries; however, they identified Certified FEIR Mitigation Measure CUL- 5 for the unanticipated discovery of human remains protocols is still applicable for the Revised Project in order to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less significant level. No new mitigation measures are recommended.

Certified FEIR Mitigation Measures CUL- 1, CUL- 2, CUL- 3, CUL- 4 and CUL- 5 will reduce the Revised Project’ s contributions to cumulative cultural resources impacts in the City of Solvang and Santa Ynez Valley community by ensuring that appropriate surveys are conducted to identify tribal cultural resources.

Therefore, with respect to tribal cultural resources, the changes reflected in the Revised Project and current circumstances do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would require preparation of an EIR. 569

4.0 REFERENCES
The following documents and information were used in the preparation of this Addendum:

Cachuma Conservation Release Board, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1, City of Lompoc, Settlement Agreement Relating to Operation of the Cachuma Project, 2002.

Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB), Fisheries Division, Fish Passage Report, 2021.

Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board ( COMB), Fisheries Division, WY2020 Annual Monitoring Summary, February 24, 2021.

California Air Resources Board. https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/ fact-sheets/ ab-32-global-warmingsolutions- act-2006. Accessed October 2021.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 17, “Surface Water Treatment.” California Department of Fish and Game, Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans ( NCCPs), November 2011.

California Energy Commission. 2019 IEPR Workshops, Notices and Documents. California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Revised Forecast. CED 2019 Baseline Forecast - LSE and BA Tables Low Demand Case - CORRECTED Feb 2020 TN-232310. https:// www.energy.ca.gov/ data-reports/ reports/ integratedenergy-policy-report/ 2019-integrated- energy-policy-report/ 2019-iepr. Accessed November 2021.

California Energy Commission. Renewable Portfolio Standard. https:// www.energy. ca.gov/ programs- andtopics/ programs/ renewables- portfolio- standard. Accessed October 2021.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines, Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration.

CEQA Guidelines, sec. Section 15064.5.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration City of Solvang Municipal Code, Title 13, “ Flood Control.” City of Solvang, General Plan, Conservation/ Open Space Element, May 23, 2016. 570
City of Solvang, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 1988, Page 28.

City of Solvang, General Plan, Land Use Element, June 23, 2008.

City of Solvang, Integrated Water Supply Management Plan, October 2018.

Compass Rose Archaeological, Inc., Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, City of Solvang Water System Master Plan Update, Santa Barbara County, California ( 2011).

County of Santa Barbara, Planning & Development Department, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, 2009, Figure 11.

County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Chapter 9.16.040 Construction Work at Night Prohibited, http:// qcode.us/ codes/ santabarbara/? view=desktop& topic=9-9_16, Accessed November 2021.

County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations, October 2009 (Map).

County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Land Use Designations, January 2019 (Map).

County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, October 6, 2009.

County of Santa Barbara, The Code of Santa Barbara County ( The Santa Barbara County Code), Chapter 35, “Agricultural and Industrial Zones,” Table 2-1 and Table 2-20.

County of Santa Barbara. County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element, Amended December 2016.

County of Santa Barbara. County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element COMP- 1, May 2019.

County of Santa Barbara. Energy and Climate Action Plan. https:// www.countyofsb. org/ csd/ asset.c/ 173.

Accessed October 2021.

Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., 1973.

Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., Section 7, Consultations and Conferences, 1973.

Final Environmental Impact Report, Consideration of Modifications to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation' s Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications. 1133.1 and. 11332) to. Protect Public Trust 571
Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir) ( State Clearinghouse# 1999051051} ( Final EIR).

Goleta Water District, Facility Plan, Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant, GWD Project No. 00.3309, 2004) 11-3.

Goleta Water District, Facility Plan, Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant, GWD Project No. 00.3309, 2004) 11-2.

National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), Biological Opinion for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California September 11, 2000.

National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), Endangered Species Act ( ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, NMFS Consultation Number: WCRO- 2019-11596, Southern California steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss), June 5, 2019.

National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan, Public Review Draft Version, Southwest Regional Office, Long Beach, California. January 2012.

Reclamation’ s publicly accessible SCCAO Operations page is located at:
https:// www.usbr.gov/ mp/ sccao/ operations. html.

Santa Barbara County Assessor Office, 2021. Existing Land Uses, February 2021.

Santa Barbara County Ordinance No. 3095, County Code 15B, Development Along Watercourses.

Santa Barbara County. Air Pollution Control District ( APCD). https:// www.ourair.org/ greenhouse- gasesand-ceqa/. Accessed October 2021.

Santa Barbara County. Air Pollution Control District ( SBCAPCD). Environmental Review Guidelines. https:// www.ourair.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ APCDCEQAGuidelinesApr2015. pdf. Accessed October 2021.

Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan.

Volume I. Page 2-54. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, California. Final Report. October 2, 2000.
572
Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. Volumes I and II. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, California. Final Report. October 2, 2000.

Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee with Technical Support by ENTRIX, Inc., Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, October 2, 2000.

Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Public Draft Santa Ynez river Valley Groundwater Basin – Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Plan,
https:// www.santaynezwater. org/ files/ 4352737ed/ EMA+GSP+Public+Draft+2021-09- 08+with+hyperlinks. pdf, Accessed December 2021.

Settlement Agreement between Cachuma Conservation Release Board, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1 ID #!), and the City of Lompoc, relating to Operation of the Cachuma Project. December 17, 2002.

State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), eWRIMS database, https:// waterrightsmaps. waterboards. ca.gov/ viewer/ index.html?viewer=eWRIMS. eWRIMS_ gvh Accessed October 2021.

State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), Final Environmental Impact Report, consideration of Modifications to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’ s Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 Applications 11331 and 11332) to Protect Public Trust Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam ( Cachuma Reservoir) State Clearinghouse # 1999051051, December 2011.

State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), Order 94-5, Order Continuing Reserved Jurisdiction and issuing Amened Permits, Issued) Order: WR 94-5 pursuant to Applications 11331 and 11332; the United States Bureau of Reclamation: Permittee, November 17, 1994.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order WR 2019-0148.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order WR 2019-0148. Order Amending Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 AND 11332). In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) held by the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River, September 17, 2019.
573
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Water Rights Order 94-5, In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310 Issued Order: pursuant to Applications 11331 and 11332; the United States Bureau of Reclamation: Permittee. November 17, 1994.

Stetson Engineers. Technical Memorandum No. 1, Hydrologic Impact Analysis for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Right Permit 15878, April 2004 ( see Appendix 5.1 in the Certified FEIR).

Stetson Engineers. Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878– New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge, Table ES-1, January 24, 2011 (see Appendix 5.1 in the Certified FEIR).

Stetson Engineers. Technical Memorandum No. 6. Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878 – New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge ( see Appendix 5.1 in the Certified FEIR).

Stetson Engineers. Technical Memorandum No. 6. Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878 – New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge, Table 17 (see Appendix 5.1 in the Certified FEIR).

Stetson Engineers. Technical Memorandum No. 6. Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878 – New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge. 6.0 Summary and Conclusions ( see Appendix 5.1 in the Certified FEIR).

Stetson Engineers. Technical Memorandum No. 6. Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878 – New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge. 6.0 Summary and Conclusions.

Sustainability Division County of Santa Barbara. Strategic Energy Plan for the County of Santa Barbara.

August 2019. https:// www.countyofsb. org/ csd/ asset.c/ 327. Accessed December 2021.

Term 15(a) of Order WR-2019-0148.

Term 16(a)-16(b) of Order WR-2019-0148.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation’ s Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) To Protect Public Trust Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir).
574
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Order WR 2019-0148 Term 18 Plan, Cachuma Project, California, dated May 2021.

US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation South Central California Area Office, Biological Assessment for the Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project, Cachuma Project, Santa Barbara, California Interior Region 10- California Great Basin, April 2021.

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office, “ Habitat Conservation Plans,” http:// www.fws.gov/ ventura/ endangered/ habitat_conservation_ planning/ hcp/ index.html.

Updated July 15, 2011.
575

5.0 PREPARERS
Lead Agency
City of Solvang
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Xenia Bradford, City Manager
Matt van der Linden, Special Projects Director
Addendum to the Certified FEIR Preparation
Meridian Consultants LLC
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Joe Gibson, Partner
Chris Hampson, Principal
Leanna Williams, Senior Project Manager
Holly Galbreath, Project Planner
Zulema Renteria, Staff Planner
Michael Levi, Staff Planner
Rachel Bastian, Production Coordinator
Tom Brauer, Graphics Coordinator
Robertson- Bryan, Inc., Fisheries Biological Resources Consultant 3100 Zinfandel Dr., Suite 300
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Keith Whitener, Senior Scientist/ Associate
Michelle Brown, Associate Water Resources Engineer
GSI Water Solutions, Inc., Hydrogeologic Consultant
418 Chapala Street, Suite H
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tim Thompson, PG, CHg, Principal Water Resources Consultant Tim Nicely, PG, CHg, Supervising Hydrogeologist
Andy Lapostol, Project Geologist
576
Pax Environmental, Inc., Terrestrial Biological Resources Consultant 226 West Ojai Ave. Ste 101 #157
Ojai, CA 93023
Brian Holly, Principal Senior Ecologist
Andy Fredell, Senior Biologist
PaleoWest, LLC, Cultural Resources Consultant
517 S. Ivy Avenue
Monrovia, CA 91016
Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA, Senior Archaeologist/ Project Manager 577

APPENDIX A
GSI Hydrogeologic Assessment
578
City of Solvang
Review of Santa Ynez River Mechanics
and Technical Memoranda Associated
with City of Solvang’s Revised River Wells
Project
May 28, 2021 (revised November 5, 2021)
Prepared by:

GSI Water Solutions, Inc.
418 Chapala Street, Suite H, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
579
This page intentionally left blank.
580
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. iii
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Summary of Relevant EIR Findings and 2021 Project Concept ......................................................................... 2 2021 Project Concept ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................................................ 3 NOAA-NMFS 2000 & 2019 Biological Opinions.............................................................................................. 3 City of Solvang 2014 Certified Environmental Impact Report ........................................................................ 3 Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements .................................................................. 4 Depletion of Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge ..................................... 4 Create or Contribute Runoff Water ............................................................................................................. 4 Place Structures Within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area.............................................................................. 4 SWRCB 2019 Cachuma Project Order (Water Rights Order 2019-0148) ...................................................... 5 Review of Stetson’ s Technical Memoranda ....................................................................................................... 7 TM No. 6 - Additional Alternative Analyses, January 2011 ............................................................................. 8 TM No. 1 - Hydrologic Impact Analysis of Pumping Scenarios, April 2004 ..................................................... 9 TM No. 2 - Water Quality ( TDS) Impact Analysis, May 2004 ......................................................................... 10 TM No. 3 - MODFLOW Groundwater Model Simulations, July 2004 ............................................................. 10 TM No. 4 - Additional Alternative Modeling 2, November 2004 ................................................................... 10 TM No. 5 - Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Solvang Pumping on Alisal Ranch Wells, July 2005 ......... 11 Comparison of Revised River Wells Project to 2014 Project ............................................................................ 12 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Tables
Table 1. Summary of Stetson’ s Technical Memoranda ...................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Summary of Differences between Revised River Wells Project to the Original Project considered in the 2014 EIR .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figures
Figure 1. River Wells Project Site Plan
Appendix
Stetson Technical Memos 1 through 6
581
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1
Introduction
This report was prepared for the City of Solvang ( City) to provide an overview of the regulatory framework with respect to the City’s Revised River Wells Project (“ Revised Project”; City of Solvang, 2021) focused on the National Marine Fisheries Service 2000 Biological Opinion for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamations’ ( USBR) Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project (“ 2000 Biological Opinion”) and the 2019 State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Cachuma Project Water Rights Order (2019-0148). This report compares the Revised Project relative to the original project version (“ Original Project”) which was evaluated in the environmental impact report for the City’s 2011 Water System Master Plan Update certified by the City on February 28, 2014 (“2014 EIR”). This report also considers the implications of the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion ( NMFS Consultation Number WCRO-2019-11596 [“ 2019 Biological Opinion”] that was adopted on June 5, 2019) on the effect of river wells adjacent to the Santa Ynez River.

In an effort to provide technical background, this report provides an overview of six memoranda prepared by Stetson Engineers between 2004 and 2011 (see Appendix A for Tech Memo Nos. 1 thru 6), to identify the main effects related to the City’ s 2021 Revised Project pumping plan to extract water from the Santa Ynez River alluvium from a reduced number of wells. This review of the six technical memoranda focuses on their relevance to the Revised Project, with particular focus on the sixth and most relevant of these memoranda.

As will be discussed further, the first five memoranda focus on pumping from the Site A area, which is immediately downstream of the Alisal Bridge and within the Santa Ynez subarea ( Figure 1). The sixth memorandum focused on pumping from the new wells located at Site B (within the Buellton subarea), which is downstream of the Alisal Bridge, as discussed and analyzed in the 2014 EIR, and where Solvang proposes to place wells under the 2021 project concept. The most upstream boundary of Site B is located approximately 4,600 feet downstream of the Alisal Bridge within the Buellton subarea and extends to 8,060 feet downstream of the Alisal Bridge. Sites A and B are visible in the approximate center of the photo on the cover of this report, taken in 2019.

The Revised Project is consistent with the project analyzed in the 2014 EIR and the Stetson memoranda because the proposed wells in Site B are in areas analyzed under the 2014 Certified EIR, the wells are of a similar design and will have reduced operational parameters, and the wells will be at least 150 feet from the high water mark of the Santa Ynez River as assumed under the 2014 EIR.

Based on a comparison of the river conditions analyzed in the 2014 EIR, the anticipated effects of the Revised Project will be less than the impacts identified in Stetson's TM No. 6, which was used to analyze potential impacts of the City’s Original Project that was evaluated in the 2014 EIR, principally because:
a) there will be fewer planned wells (only 2 instead of 6); b) the wells will be operated at a lesser pumping rate; c) The wells will be at a much greater distance from the Alisal Ranch and ID#1 wells (which are located upstream of Alisal Bridge); and,
d) The wells will be pumped at a smaller amount of maximum annual extraction from the Santa Ynez River alluvium compared to the original project considered in the 2014 EIR. 582
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 2
Summary of Relevant EIR Findings and 2021 Project Concept 2021 Project Concept
The primary objectives of the City’s 2011 Water Master Plan Update and the Revised River Wells Project remain the same:

1. Provide a secure water supply for existing and future Solvang residents and businesses consistent with the City’s General Plan.

2. Provide for a reliable and diversified water supply through the use of multiple sources of supply.

3. Provide the needed water supply at a reasonable cost.

4. Perform the necessary new construction while protecting the environment and minimizing environmental impacts along the Santa Ynez River.

After completion of the Revised Project, the City's River Wells will only include the existing Well 3 and the two new wells proposed for the Site B area. Consistent with the 2014 EIR, the two new wells will be a minimum of 1,000 feet apart as presented on the Revised River Wells Project Site Plan (Figure 1) and located 150 feet back from the high water mark of the Santa Ynez River. The new wells will be designed and installed in the same manner as those analyzed under the 2014 EIR. The City’ s existing Well 7A will be abandoned following completion of two proposed Site B wells.

Planned pumping from the City’s Revised River Wells Project:

Reduces the originally planned number of River Wells evaluated in the 2014 EIR from 2 existing wells plus 6 new wells (8 total wells) to 1 existing well plus 2 new wells within Site B (3 total wells).

Locates the 2 new wells substantially farther downstream and away from the Alisal Bridge, but within the Site B area evaluated in the 2014 EIR.

Reduces the planned maximum annual pumping volume from 1,980 acre-feet per year (AFY), as analyzed in the 2014 EIR, to 1,368 AFY ( a 31% reduction), and Reduces the planned instantaneous pumping rate analyzed in the 2014 EIR from 5 to 2.84 cubic feet per second ( cfs) (a 43% reduction).

The City’ s pumping from the Santa Ynez River alluvium is conducted under an existing permit that is pending under a petition for a change before the SWRCB Division of Water Rights (City of Solvang Water Rights Permit 15878). The City has a right to extract water from the gravels of the Santa Ynez River under its existing permit.
583
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 3
Regulatory Framework
The proposed pumping by the City is influenced by the 2000 Biological Assessment, as it governs the operations of the Cachuma Project, and the SWRCB’ s Cachuma Project Order 2019-0148, which imposes conditions on the water right permits issued to USBR for operations of the Cachuma Project.

NOAA-NMFS 2000 & 2019 Biological Opinions
The 2000 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS for the Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project by the USBR establishes flow targets at key reaches of the lower Santa Ynez River for the protection of endangered steelhead and maintenance of habitat. As described in the 2000 Biological Opinion and the 2000 Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, flow targets for the maintenance of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat are not established in areas downstream of the Alisal Bridge. The 2019 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS examined the status of the endangered Southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead that would be adversely affected by renewing a 10-year research and enhancement permit, including factors affecting steelhead and critical habitat throughout the entire range of the steelhead which includes coastal streams from the Santa Maria River to the Mexican border. Note that the 2000 Biological Opinion is more specific to the Santa Ynez River.

Under the Revised Project, the location of the proposed new wells has been moved at the request of CalTrout, Alisal Ranch and ID#1 to a location downstream of Alisal Bridge. As further explained and discussed below, Stetson’ s TM No. 6 demonstrated through use of the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model that the City’s proposed well production downstream of Alisal Bridge as identified in the Original Project is not anticipated to cause appreciable drawdown in the flow target areas.

The relocation of pumping from the existing Well 7A, which is in the Santa Ynez subarea of the Santa Ynez alluvium (“ Basin”), to a location downstream of the Alisal Bridge at Site B and within the Buellton subarea, will provide a more even distribution of wells that pump underflow from the Santa Ynez River alluvium. Of the identified major water producers that extract water from the Santa Ynez River alluvium, referred to as Zone A of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, approximately 1,616 acre-feet was pumped from the Santa Ynez subarea during fiscal year 2018-2019. This includes pumping by the City.

By comparison, only 617 acre-feet were pumped from the Buellton subarea in 2018-2019 which is approximately 38% of the pumping from major producers in the Santa Ynez subarea. Shifting of Solvang’ s new wells from the Santa Ynez subarea to the Buellton subarea would decrease the pumping from the Santa Ynez subarea near established flow targets. If Solvang’ s 2018-2019 pumping occurred as contemplated in the Revised Project, only 1,421 acre feet would have been pumped from the Santa Ynez subarea and 812 acre-feet would have been pumped from Buellton subarea ( i.e., an additional 195 acre-feet of water would have been pumped from the Buellton subarea). This more evenly-distributed pumping from the river alluvium would reduce the effects of the City’s pumping on neighboring wells, specifically those from Alisal Ranch and ID#1.

City of Solvang 2014 Certified Environmental Impact Report Numerical modeling and analysis guided the development of the Solvang’ s 2011 Water Master Plan Update, which incorporated the analysis of hydrologic conditions, including surface water and groundwater underflow of the lower Santa Ynez River), and water quality, through a number of studies. The six technical memoranda prepared by Stetson ( see Appendix A), which are reviewed in this report, were central to the analysis presented in the City’s 2014 Certified EIR. The results presented in the 2014 Certified EIR are the result of analyzing simulated operations using the Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Model (SYRHM). Using the 584
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 4
model, discussed in more detail below, Stetson evaluated the potential impact of a combined pumping rate of 2,400 AFY at Well Sites A and B with an instantaneous pumping rate of 5 cfs.

The 2014 Certified EIR analyzes the potential impacts the original project (as described in the EIR and referred to herein as the 2014 project concept) would have on the environment in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR’ s analysis of the earlier project with respect to surface and subsurface water criteria are presented below. With regard to these elements presented here, the EIR found the impacts to be less than significant or less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. A comparison of the current Revised River Wells Project relative to the project considered in the 2014 EIR is provided later in this report.

Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements Criteria: Whether the project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

The 2014 Certified EIR determined that no mitigation measures were required as the impacts were determined to be “less than significant”, because ( a) during construction, “ water quality in the groundwater basin would not be altered and would not impair the beneficial uses”, and (b) during operations, “ water diverted from the Santa Ynez River would be suitable for the City’s municipal use”.

Depletion of Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge Criteria: Whether the project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).

The 2014 Certified EIR found project impacts could occur because of pumping during a critical drought year or period. But the EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measure: “ actively advertise, promote, and implement their Water Management Program to conserve water, reduce consumption and the need for water pumping during summer and fall, and during droughts.”
Construction impacts would result in less than significant construction related impacts. Operation impacts would be less than significant.”
Create or Contribute Runoff Water
Criteria: Whether the project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The 2014 Certified EIR determined that no mitigation measures were required as the impacts were determined to be “less than significant.”
Place Structures Within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Criteria: Whether the project would place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows
The analysis concluded less than significant impacts with mitigation. The mitigation measure is as follows:
585
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 5
New wells constructed located within the 100-year floodplain shall be adequately anchored and constructed to resist flood damage. Wells shall be equipped with a watertight casing that extends from 1 foot above grade to 20 feet below grade. The casing could be ductile iron pipe which would be strong enough to resist debris impact or a commercially available protective well cover (e.g., metal boxes or cylinders).”
SWRCB 2019 Cachuma Project Order (Water Rights Order 2019-0148) The SWRCB’ s Order 2019-0148 requires the USBR to release sufficient water from Bradbury Dam to satisfy downstream water rights and to meet flow requirements for the protection of steelhead and their habitat including the flow requirements set forth by the 2000 Biological Opinion, plus additional flow in wet and above-normal years1. Flows to meet downstream water right requirements and fisheries requirements are either released via the outlet works of Bradbury Dam or via the Hilton Creek watering system. Recharge to the river alluvium is primarily from downstream water right releases and from tributaries originating below Bradbury Dam.

SWRCB Order 2019-0148 requires substantially more water to be released from Bradbury Dam during wet and above-normal year types for the benefit of steelhead ( see Table 2 flows at pp. 134-135). These flow requirements are monitored at two flow target sites (Highway 154 and Alisal Bridge), each of which are located upstream of Site B. Streamflow at these upstream flow target sites is much less likely to be affected by the proposed future City pumping.

Stetson’ s TM No. 6 demonstrated that the City’s well production, as described in the 2014 EIR, downstream of Alisal Bridge at rates higher than proposed in the Revised Project concept, is not anticipated to cause appreciable drawdown in the flow target areas established by the 2000 Biological Opinion. Furthermore, the increased fishery releases under SWRCB Order 2019-0148 will result in even less drawdown than analyzed in Stetson’ s TM No. 6 as a result of the increased river flows and corresponding increases of water in storage within the river alluvium.

The model results analyzed in TM No. 6 presented the predicted drawdown during the late summer months during which there is no flow within the Santa Ynez River and when the most drawdown would be expected.

At the upstream boundary of Site B, drawdown at the previous, higher pumping rates as evaluated in the 2014 EIR varied between 4 feet (at a distance of 3,000 feet upstream) and 7 feet (at a distance of 1,000 feet upstream). Similarly, drawdown under these conditions in the downstream direction varied between 1 foot (at a distance of 6,000 feet) and 4 feet (at a distance of 2,000 feet). When the Santa Ynez River is flowing even without the increased fishery releases under Order 2019-0148, the anticipated drawdown was predicted to be much less, at near zero drawdown, at a distance of 1,000 feet downstream.

Equally importantly, additional water rights releases and regulatory fishery releases from the Cachuma Project will ensure that target flows required by the 2000 Biological Opinion and SWRCB Order 2019-0148 are satisfied. Specifically, the Term 18 Plan provides guidance for these releases.

The shifting of pumping from the Santa Ynez subarea to the Buellton subarea would shift pumping from a subarea with a lesser total storage capacity to a subarea with a greater total storage capacity. The storage capacity of the alluvial deposits under full water conditions as determined in SWRCB Order 73-37 indicate that the Buellton subarea has 27,500 acre-feet of storage, while the Santa Ynez subarea has 21,000 acrefeet of storage. Under full water conditions, the Buellton subarea will better accommodate the City’s 1 Cachuma Order WR 2019-0148 Term 18 Plan, Cachuma Project, California, dated May 2021 586
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 6
pumping from the 2 new wells under the Revised Project concept compared to pumping in the Santa Ynez subarea due to its greater overall storage volume. The modeled water levels evaluated for the 2014 EIR, which used a pumping volume greater than the Revised Project and indicated that drawdown would be 4 feet at a distance of 3,000 feet upstream of the boundary of Site B. Together with the more evenly distributed pumping discussed above, the effects of shifting pumping into the Buellton subarea will have less effect on both water in storage within the river alluvium and the surface water flows. 587
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 7
Review of Stetson’ s Technical Memoranda
The following section presents a review of the content and relevance of six memoranda prepared by Stetson Engineers between 2004 and 2011 (see Appendix A) in support of the then proposed expanded pumping from the City’s River Wells. The six technical memoranda were prepared for the City and present the principal effects related to the City’s then proposed expansion of their pumping from the Santa Ynez River alluvium. Stetson’ s first five TMs focused on various aspects of proposed pumping from Site A (located immediately downstream of the Alisal Bridge), which is no longer being considered under the Revised River Wells Project. Stetson’ s TM No. 6 was prepared in support of the City's 2014 EIR in connection with their petition to the SWRCB for a modified reach of diversion and an extension of time for the City’s Water Rights Permit 15878.

Stetson’ s TM No. 6 focuses on pumping from Site B and is discussed in the following review. Site B is located downstream of Site A and the Alisal Bridge, as shown in Figure 1.

A summary of the six memoranda is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Stetson’ s Technical Memoranda
Technical
Memorandum Focus
Relevant
to Revised
River Wells
Project?
Notes
No. 1 Pumping scenarios in Site A
Indirectly;
Site A
Only
Utilized SYRHM for numerous scenarios
of pumping of 600 to 3,600 AFY; 34%
return flow to River
No. 2
Water Quality ( TDS) Impact
Analysis in Site A
Indirectly;
Site A
Only
Difference in water quality (TDS) are not
considered to be significant
No. 3
Groundwater & Surface Water
Modeling in Site A
Indirectly;
Site A
Only
Magnitude of drawdown at Site A
ranged between 17 feet (600 AFY) and
35 feet (2,400 AFY)
No. 4 Additional Alt Modeling 2
Indirectly;
Site A
Only
Any increases in pumping would
correlate with increases in water rights
releases
No. 5 Proposed Solvang Pumping
Site A
Only
Water levels in the Alisal Ranch River
Wells would decline by 30 feet or more
only when Solvang is pumping at 2,400
or 3,600 AFY
No. 6 Additional Alternative Analyses Yes; Site B
Drawdown when pumping in late
summer from 4 wells at higher rates
would be 4 feet at a distance of 3,000
feet upstream, which is also 3,000 feet
downstream of Alisal Bridge. Drawdown
when river is flowing would be much
less.
588
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 8
TM No. 6 - Additional Alternative Analyses, January 2011 Stetson’ s Technical Memorandum No. 6, Additional Alternative Analysis for the City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878 – New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge was prepared in January 2011 in support of the City's 2014 EIR in connection with the petition to the SWRCB for extension of time for the City’s Water Rights Permit 15878. The memorandum also presents relevant elements from the City's 2011 Water System Master Plan Update. In addition to modeling scenarios presented in the previous Stetson memoranda ( Nos. 1 to 5), one additional scenario was modeled in Stetson’ s TM No. 6, which involved pumping from four proposed wells at Site B at a combined annual rate of 2,400 AFY with an instantaneous pumping rate of 5 cfs. This new alternative was modeled under the operational conditions and requirements of the NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion, which includes a 3-foot water level surcharge in Lake Cachuma. While the previous scenarios were modeled with the numerical MODFLOW model, the extent of the model did not accommodate analysis into this expanded area. Because of this, an analytical drawdown analysis was employed to evaluate effects on water levels in the Santa Ynez River alluvium. The analysis assumed that four new wells would be installed within Site B with spacing between them of approximately 1,000 feet.

The model results presented the predicted drawdown during the late summer months without Santa Ynez River flow, when the most drawdown is expected. At the upstream edge of Site B, drawdown varied between 4 feet (at a distance of 3,000 feet upstream) and 7 feet (at a distance of 1,000 feet upstream). Similarly, drawdown under these conditions in the downstream direction varied between 1 foot (at a distance of 6,000 feet) and 4 feet (at a distance of 2,000 feet). When the Santa Ynez River is flowing, the model results anticipated drawdown would be much less, at near zero drawdown, at a distance of about 1,000 feet. The increased releases established under SWRCB Order 2019-0148 would further reduce the anticipated drawdown identified in these model results.

As reported in Stetson’ s TM No. 6, the predicted drawdown after a second year of drought would be about 6 feet at a distance of 2,000 feet. However, the modeled pumping volume of 2,400 acre-feet per year (AFY) was approximately 75 percent more than the currently-considered Revised River Wells Project annual pumping volume of 1,368 AFY. Therefore, the anticipated drawdown for the Revised River Wells Project would less that than the maximum drawdown modeled to occur after one year of pumping.

Stetson’ s TM No. 6 concluded that installation of four wells at Site B would be possible without adverse impacts to endangered steelhead habitat and without requiring substantially more releases from the Cachuma Project. The Santa Ynez River alluvium in this area would be able to meet both the planned monthly average and peak demands of the City (assuming a combined annual rate of 2,400 AFY and an instantaneous pumping rate of 5 cfs) because the alluvial deposits are thicker and the yields are typically higher in this area compared to Site A.

Furthermore, wells farther downstream of Alisal Bridge are below the target flow sites for Cachuma Project operations under the 2000 Biological Opinion and SWRCB Order 2019-0148 and locating the new wells in Site B would prevent depletion to river flows at the Alisal Bridge. As indicated in the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, the Alisal Bridge is the farthest downstream location from Lake Cachuma in which endangered steelhead are considered to have viable spawning habitat, whereas rearing habitat is located further upstream above Highway 154. Therefore, moving the City’ s proposed future pumping to Site B as established in the Revised Project, and pumping at lower rates than modelled, will result in lesser effects on flows at Alisal Bridge than those identified in the 2014 EIR because ( a) reduced pumping in the vicinity of Alisal Bridge will correspondingly reduce potential effects on the fish habitat in the Alisal Bridge area, and (b) the reduced pumping rate from Site B will result in even less effects on water levels, flow rates and water in storage in the Site B area compared to the Original Project 589
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 9
Stetson’ s TM No. 6 is the most relevant of the six memoranda to the Revised Project in that it directly addresses pumping at Site B. TM No. 6 modeled four new wells at a combined annual rate of 2,400 AFY and an instantaneous pumping rate of 5 cfs within Site B. The number of wells, the volumes, and instantaneous pumping rates analyzed in TM No. 6 are higher than is currently being considered under the Revised River Wells Project. The Revised River Wells Project only includes two wells in Site B with a maximum combined annual pumping rate of 1,368 AFY and a maximum instantaneous pumping rate of 2.84 cfs. Furthermore, the modeled conditions represented a scenario where the most drawdown would be anticipated. Even less drawdown will occur under the conditions of increased releases as established by SWRCB Order 2019-0148.

Thus, the Revised Project is smaller in scale than the scenario modeled in TM No. 6, feasible under current river conditions and reduces adverse effects associated with the project as considered in the 2014 EIR.

Greater than 50 percent of the diversion ( 800 AFY) will return to the Santa Ynez River alluvium as effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment facility percolation ponds2, based on the last several years of data. The current plan for pumping from this area includes fewer wells (two), lower overall annual pumping volumes 1,368 AFY) for the Revised Project, compared to the modeled results as presented in the 2014 EIR, and a reduced maximum instantaneous pumping rate from 5 to 2.84 cfs .

TM No. 1 - Hydrologic Impact Analysis of Pumping Scenarios, April 2004 Stetson’ s TM No. 1, Hydrologic Impacts Analysis for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Documentation for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 158768, dated April 23, 2004, (see Appendix A) presented the anticipated hydrologic impacts of both unchanged and expanded pumping from the City's River Wells located near the Alisal Bridge within Site A. Along with TM Nos. 2 and 3, this memorandum analyzed the long-term flow targets in the Santa Ynez River for steelhead habitat at the Highway 154 Bridge and at the Alisal Bridge.

The unchanged condition involves pumping of an average of 600 acre-feet per year (AFY), which represents the average amount of water pumped from the river wells by the City in years 2000 and 2001, while expanded pumping scenarios include pumping of 2,400 AFY and 3,600 AFY, respectively. The modeling was accomplished with the SYRHM.

The SYRHM became the basis for numerous hydrologic studies of releases for fish, water quality, and water rights in preparation of the NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion, the 2000 Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, the 2002 Settlement Agreement, the 2003 EIR/ EIS on the 2000 Biological Opinion and Fish Management Plan, and the SWRCB’ s CEQA review and EIRs that ultimately led to SWRCB Order 2019- 0148.

The pumping summarized in the scenarios ranged between 600 and 3,600 AFY, of which 34% is discharged by the City as treated effluent to the Santa Ynez River alluvium via percolation ponds located approximately one mile downstream of the Alisal Bridge ( downstream of Site A). The City has returned approximately 800 AFY of effluent to the Santa Ynez River alluvium in each of the last several years.

The modeled effects of expanded pumping by the City include increased water rights releases, whereby the releases would be increased by 540 AFY to increase pumping by 3,000 AFY.

As described in Stetson’ s TM No. 1, increased pumping from the City's River wells at Site A leads to a reduction of water in storage, although the amount of water in storage is shown to recover to the same level in response to recharge that occurs during winter runoff flows. During droughts, water levels in the area would be 5 feet lower than during the critical drought period under the then present pumping conditions. 2 The City’ s wastewater treatment facility and associated percolation ponds are located on the south side of the Santa Ynez River at approximately the eastern ( upstream) extent of the Site B area. 590
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 10
The results of Stetson’ s TM No. 1 are based on pumping from Site A, which is upstream of Site B. Because the City is proposing to locate its two new wells in Site B (downstream of Alisal Bridge) and abandon Well 7A upstream of Alisal Bridge), the Revised Project will have less effect on water in storage in the river gravels in Site A than determined in the evaluations considered in the 2014 Certified EIR, as discussed in the review of TM No. 6.

TM No. 2 - Water Quality (TDS) Impact Analysis, May 2004 Stetson’ s TM No., 2, Water Quality Impact Analysis for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878, dated May 10, 2004, (see Appendix A) presented water quality impacts analysis for the City's CEQA analysis for its petition for a time extension for Water Rights Permit 15878, specifically focused on total dissolved solids concentrations for pumping planned to occur within Site A. The pumping summarized in the scenarios ranged between 600 and 3,600 AFY, of which 34% is discharged by the City as treated effluent to the Santa Ynez River alluvium via percolation ponds located approximately one mile downstream of the Alisal Bridge (downstream of Site A). The City has returned approximately 800 AFY of effluent to the Santa Ynez River alluvium in each of the last several years.

The memorandum concludes that total dissolved solids concentrations of surface water at the Lompoc Narrows are similar for all the scenarios, expect those with no SWP deliveries, which show salinity increases of 50 to 100 mg/ L in the summer and early fall. The difference is not considered to be significant.

Because Stetson’ s TM No. 2 is based on higher pumping rates and higher annual volumes of diversion, the Revised Project will have less effect on water quality than determined in the evaluation considered in the 2014 Certified EIR, as discussed further above as part of the review of Stetson’ s TM No. 6. The Revised Project is not expected to have an effect on water quality in the Lompoc Narrows.

TM No. 3 - MODFLOW Groundwater Model Simulations, July 2004 Stetson’ s TM No. 3, Solvang EIR Groundwater Model Modflow Simulations, dated July 19, 2004, (see Appendix A) presented the results of flow modeling with both a finite-difference numerical groundwater model and the SYRHM for the area of the Santa Ynez River between a location three-quarters of a mile downstream of the Highway 154 bridge and one mile downstream of the Alisal Bridge. The model was utilized to assess the effects of several proposed scenarios of increased alluvial pumping by the City (ranging from 600 AFY to 3,600 AFY) near the Alisal Bridge on both subsurface water and surface water flow conditions. The model represented flows in the Santa Ynez River alluvium from downstream of Bradbury Dam for the period 1982 through 1993, using monthly hydrologic data from 1953 and 1993.

The model simulated pumping from the City's Site A wells and concluded that the magnitude of drawdown ranged between 17 feet (600 AFY) and 35 feet (2,400 AFY).

Because the maximum pumping volume of 1,368 AFY in Site B (far downstream of the Alisal Bridge) according to the Revised Project will be much less than the middle ( 2,400 AFY) and upper volumes ( 3,600 AFY) of pumping in Site A (above Alisal Bridge) that were modeled in Stetson’ s TM No. 3, the Revised Project will have less effect on drawdown at the Alisal Bridge than determined in the evaluation considered in the 2014 EIR.

TM No. 4 - Additional Alternative Modeling 2, November 2004 Stetson’ s TM No. 4, Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878, dated November 11, 2004, (see Appendix A) presented additional analyses for a scenario of 1,053 AFY of diversion by the City. The 1,053 AFY pumping from the 591
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 11
City's River Wells is relatively similar in volume to the currently proposed pumping of 1,368 AFY, although the prior proposal involved pumping in Site A and the current proposal moves the City’s new wells to Site B substantially farther downstream. Generally, increases in pumping from the City's river wells would correlate with increases in water rights releases to meet the City’s needs.

As with the previous memoranda, the modeling summarized in Stetson’ s TM No. 4 involved pumping from the City’s river wells in Site A area. Notably, pumping by the City from Site B farther downstream of Alisal Bridge would shift any effects from the Santa Ynez subarea downstream to the Buellton subarea. Because of this, the Revised Project will have less effect on groundwater elevation near the Alisal Bridge than determined in the evaluation considered in the 2014 EIR.

TM No. 5 - Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Solvang Pumping on Alisal Ranch Wells, July 2005
Stetson’ s TM No. 5, Assessment of Impacts pf Proposed Solvang Pumping on Alisal Ranch Wells, dated July 19, 2005. (see Appendix A) presented the impacts of the City’s pumping from Site A on Alisal Ranch wells during low flow periods. Groundwater modeling presented in Stetson’ s TM No. 5 indicates that increased pumping by the City in Site A would substantially affect nearby wells during dry periods when there is no flow in the Alisal reach of the Santa Ynez River. The memorandum focuses on effects of five irrigation wells near Site A that serve the Alisal Ranch River golf course.

The modeling results indicated that water levels in the Alisal Ranch River wells would decline by 30 feet or more only when Solvang is pumping at 2,400 or 3,600 AFY, and when Cachuma Project release requirements were in effect. These drawdowns were evident only during 1961, 1964 to 1965, 1977, and 1990 to 1991. During these modeled years, the corresponding hydrologic conditions would preclude the ability to pump these wells without causing adverse effects on the neighboring wells.

Because the Revised Project wells will be installed at Site B instead of Site A, the Revised Project will have less effect on Alisal Ranch River Wells than determined in the evaluation considered in the 2014 EIR. 592
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 12
Comparison of Revised River Wells Project to 2014 Project The Revised Project, as described in the revised project description dated September 27, 2021, for the extraction of underflow from the Santa Ynez alluvium has been refined compared to that of the original project considered in the 2014 EIR. Changes reflected in the Revised Project were made to minimize possible river well pumping impacts to other upstream wells operated by Alisal Ranch and ID. No 1. The City has elected to make the following modifications:

Utilizing only the proposed change in the Reach of Diversion previously discussed in the 2014 EIR downstream to solely use Site B (minimizes impacts to Alisal Ranch and ID No. 1 River wells), Decreasing the original request for the length of Reach of Diversion discussed in the 2014 EIR from 19,500 feet to 8,060 feet,
Limit volume of planned river well pumping to its historical maximum annual diversion ( from 1,980 to 1,368 AFY),
Limiting proposed maximum diversion rate to 2.84 cfs from 5 cfs as discussed in the 2014 EIR, and Following the installation of two wells proposed for Site B, the City will abandon Well 7A as originally proposed in the 2014 EIR.

A summary of the relevant improvements to the Revised Project to the Original Project considered in the 2014 EIR are summarized below in Table 2. The components of the Revised Project would occur within the analyzed footprint of the Original Project considered in the 2014 EIR. This report focusses on aspects of the project relevant to the included analysis and does not include a comprehensive project description.

Table 2. Summary of Differences between Revised River Wells Project to the Original Project considered in the 2014 EIR
Sample Table
Project Component
2014 Certified EIR
Original Project
Revised River Wells Project
Number of Existing Wells 2 1 (after well 7A abandoned)
Number of Proposed Wells 6 2
Total Number of Wells 8 3
Maximum Diversion ( AFY) 1,980 1,368
Maximum Diversion Rate (cfs) 5.00 2.84
Reach of Diversion ( Feet) 19,500 8,060
New wells in Site A Yes No
City Wells between ID#1 and Alisal Wells Yes No
Wells located away from
steelhead spawning habitat
No Yes
Notes: Based on Revised River Wells Project Description 593
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 13
Conclusions
Based upon review of (a) regulatory requirements as stipulated in the 2000 and 2019 Biological Opinions and in Water Rights Order 2019-0148 and (b) technical analyses conducted to evaluate various pumping scenarios as presented in Stetson’ s TM Nos 1 to 6, the Revised River Wells Project will have less effect on river conditions than the Original Project evaluated in the 2014 Certified EIR. Based on results of modeling summarized in Stetson’ s TM No. 6, pumping from 4 new wells at Site B would not cause adverse effects on river flow conditions at Alisal Bridge. Because the Revised River Wells Project identifies only 2 new wells in Site B, pumping less volume per year at a lower maximum instantaneous pumping rate, the effects will be less than those identified in Stetson’ s TM No. 6 and the 2014 Certified EIR.

The modeling results from Stetson’ s TM No. 6 indicate that the Santa Ynez River alluvium in Site B would be able to meet both the planned monthly average and peak demands of the City under the Original Project (at the time of the Stetson’ s TM No. 6, the City’s demands were based on a combined annual rate of 2,400 AFY and an instantaneous pumping rate of 5 cfs from the City’s river wells) because the alluvial deposits are thicker, and the well yields are typically higher in Site B compared to Site A.

The Revised River Wells Project will have less impact than modeled because it will:
reduce the number of wells,
reduce the planned maximum annual pumping volume from 1,980 AFY to 1,368 AFY ( a 31% reduction), and
reduce the maximum instantaneous pumping rates from 5 to 2.84 cfs (a 43% reduction). 594
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 14
References
Cachuma Conservation Release Board Members et al. 2002. Settlement Agreement Between Cachuma Conservation Release Board, Santa Yanez River Water Conservation District, Santa Yanez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1, and the City of Lompoc Relation to Operation of the Cachuma Project. September 17, 2002.

City of Solvang. 2008. Land Use Element of the General Plan. Prepared by firma and Penfield & Smith in cooperation with City of Solvang staff.

City of Solvang. 2011. Water System Master Plan Update.

City of Solvang. 2014. Water System Master Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Water System Master Plan Update, City of Solvang, California. February 28, 2014.

City of Solvang. 2015. Petition for Extension of Time Application 22423 Permit 15878. May 7, 2015.

City of Solvang. 2021, City of Solvang River Wells Project - Project Description ( Updated), Revised 9-27- 2021. Prepared by the City of Solvang, California.

COMB et al. 2004. Final Program and Project-Specific Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan and Cachuma Project Biological Opinion for Southern Steelhead Trout. Volume 1 - EIR Main Text and Figures. Prepared by Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board ( COMB), Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation SouthCentral California Area Office, and URS Corporation. February 2004.

ERD. 2021. Re: City of Solvang Petitions: California Trout Status Conference Statement. Letter from the Environmental Defense Center to Alan B. Lilly, Presiding Hearing Officer, State Water Resources Control Board. March 25, 2021.

Meridian Consultants. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Water System Master Plan Update, City of Solvang. Prepared for the City of Solvang. Prepared by Meridian Consultants, LLC.

NOAA. 2021. Re: Solvang Petitions: City of Solvang Petitions for Change, Permit 15878. Letter from the U.S.

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to Alan B. Lilly, Presiding Hearing Officer, State Water Resources Control Board. April 12, 2021.

State of California. California Environmental Quality Act. State of California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15002, Subdivision ( a)(1-4).

Stetson. 2004. Technical Memorandum No. 1. Hydrologic Impact Analyses for City of Solvang' s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878. Prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.

Stetson. 2004. Technical Memorandum No. 2. Water Quality Impact Analyses for City of Solvang' s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878. Prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.

Stetson. 2004. Technical Memorandum No. 3. Solvang EIR Groundwater Model Modflow Simulations.

Prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.

Stetson. 2004. Technical Memorandum No. 4. Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang' s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878. Prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.
595
Review of Technical Memoranda Associated with Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 15
Stetson. 2005. Technical Memorandum No. 5. Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Solvang Pumping on Alisal Ranch Wells. Prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.

Stetson. 2011. Draft Technical Memorandum No. 6. Re: Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878 – New Wells Downstream of Alisal Bridge. Prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.

SWRCB. 2019. Cachuma Project Hearing - Final Order WR 2019-0148. Email from Jane Farwell-Jensen, Hearings Unit, Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board. October 25, 2019.

SWRCB. 2020. Re: City of Solvang Permit 15878 (Application 22423). Letter from Alan B. Lilly, Presiding Hearing Officer, State Water Resources Control Board and C.E. Chip Wullbrandt for Price, Postel & Parma LLP to the Parties to SWRCB Diversion Hearing Process. October 19, 2020. California State Water Resources Control Board.

SWRCB. Order WR 2019-0148. In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) held by the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River, Order Amending Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332). California State Water Resources Control Board.

SYRCB. 1973. In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310, Issued on Applications 11331 and 11332, U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, Permittee. California State Water Resources Control Board. July 5, 1973.

SYRCB. 1978. In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310, Issued on Applications 11331 and 11332, U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, Permittee. California State Water Resources Control Board. July 5, 1978.

SYRCB. 1989. In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310, Issued Pursuant to Applications 11331 and 11332, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Permittee. California State Water Resources Control Board.

September 21, 1989.

SYRTAC. 2000. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. Volume I Management Plan. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee. Prepared by Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee with Technical Support by ENTRIX, Inc. October 2, 2000.

USBR. 2000. Biological Opinion, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California. Action Agency: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ( USBR). Consultation Conducted by: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. September 11, 2000.
596
Figure
597
This page intentionally left blank.
598
GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1
Figure 1. River Wells Project Site Plan
599
Appendix
600
This page intentionally left blank.
601
Stetson Technical Memos 1 through 6 included as a separate file 602
Technical Memorandum # 1
Hydrologic Impact Analyses
603
DRAFT
TECHNICAL M E M 0 RAN DUM NO.1
2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite K • San Rafael, California. 94901 TEL: ( 415) 457- 0701 FAX: ( 415) 457- 1638 e-mail: curtisl @ste tsonengineers. com

STETSON
ENG INEE RS INC.

To: John Gray DAn:: April 23, 2004
URS Corp., Santa Barbara, CA
FROM: Curtis Lawler JOB No.: 1944
RE: HYDROLOGIC IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CITY OF SOLVANG' S CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR WATER RIGHTS PERMIT 15878

1. INTRODUCTION
This draft memorandum is prepared for the City of Solvang' S CEQA environmental document in connection with the petition to the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) for extension oftime for Permit 15878. Consistent with the City' s May 2002 Water System Master Plan Update, the City ofSolvang is planning to expand water production from wells along the Santa Ynez River. This memorandum analyzes the hydrologic impacts of three sets of scenarios of City of Solvang' s river well pumping, including:

1. No change from current river well pumping by Solvang ( varies roughly from about 400 to 1,000 acre -feet/ year in years 1994- 2003)
2 . Total river well pumping by Solvang of2, 400 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion of 5 cfs per Table 7 of the Water System Master Plan

3. Total river well pumping by Solvang of3 ,6 00 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion of 5 cfs per Permit 15878
Although the exact alternatives for the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) by the City of Solvang are not completely known, this memorandum analyzes twelve alternatives which overlie the above three sets of Solvang river pumping on four alternatives set forth in the Cachuma Water Rights Draft EIR by the State Water Resources Control Board ( August 2003). For each of these twelve potential EIR alternatives, analyses of surface water hydrologic impacts were performed, Stetson Engineers Inc .

F:IDATAII944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7 .DO C
Page I 4123104
604
DRAFT
using the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model ( SYRHM). Included in this memorandum are the EIR hydrologic impact analyses for:

Cachuma Reservoir Operations
Cachuma Storage and Elevations
Santa Ynez River Flows
Groundwater Storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer Water Rights Releases ( WR 89- 18)
Cachuma Project Deliveries
In addition to this technical memorandum, hydrologic analyses for salinity impacts and additional ground- water impacts ( including water level changes and possible well interferences) are provided in separate technical memoranda.

2. SYRHM OVERVIEW AND MODELING FOR FISH FLOW OPERATIONS,

SURCHARGING, AND SOLVANG RIVER WELL PUMPING
The SYRHM became the basis for numerous hydrologic studies of releases for fish, water quality, and water rights in preparation ofthe Biological Assessment, NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion ( BO), the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, the Settlement Agreement of 2002, the State Board Draft EIR (2003), and the Draft EIRJEIS ( 2003) on the Fish Management Plan and the BO ( see references). The analyses for the additional City ofSolvang river well pumping use the same programming model logic and assumptions as these previous studies. For example, previous SWRCB EIR modeling analyses assumed that Solvang pumps on average 600 acre- feet per year. Based on 34% return flow consistent with the SYRHM, the net pumping for Solvang was set at 396 acre- feet per year. This pumping amount will be used for the baseline runs to maintain consistency with previous analyses. In all twelve alternatives analyzed in this memorandum, all of the original flow inputs are kept the same, with various combinations of changes in City ofSolvang river well pumping, fish flow operations, and surcharging, as shown in Table 1. Each ofthese three Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7,DOC

605
DRAFT
components ( Solvang pumping, fish flow operations, and surcharging) as well as the SYRHM are discussed in more detail below.

TABLE 1

KEY ELEMENTS OF ALTERNA TIVES REVIEWED

FOR THE CITY OF SOLVANG EIR USING SYRHM
City of Solvang Cachuma
Gross Net Reservoir
Fish Flow
ID Alternatives Pumping Pumpingl ) Surcharge
Operations
afy Afy ft
SWRCB EIR Alt 1 600 396 0 none
2 SWRCB EIR Alt 2 ( current operations) 600 396 0.75 Interim BOIFMP 3 SWRCB EIR Alt 3A 600 396 0.75 Final BOIFMP
4 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C ( proposed operations) 600 396 3.00 Final BOIFMP 5 SWRCB EIR Alt 1 with Solvang Pumping 3600 afy 3,600 2,376 0 none 6 SWRCB EIR Alt 2 with Solvang Pumping 3600 afy 3,600 2,376 0.75 Interim BOIFMP 7 SWRCB EIR Alt 3A with Solvang Pumping 3600 afy 3,600 2,376 0.75 Final BOIFMP 8 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang Pumping 3600 afy 3,600 2,376 3.00 Final BOIFMP 9 SWRCB EIR Alt 1 with Solvang Pumping 2400 afy 2,400 1,584 0 none 10 SWRCB EIR Alt 2 with Solvang Pumping 2400 afy 2,400 1,584 0.75 Interim BOIFMP 11 SWRCB EIR Alt 3A with Solvang Pumping 2400 afy 2,400 1,584 0.75 Final BOIFMP 12 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang Pumping 2400 afy 2,400 1,584 3.00 Final BOIFMP 1) A return flow of34% is assumed.

2.1 SYRHM OVERVIEW
The SYRHM was first developed in 1979 and has been used in the past to evaluate various management alternatives in the Santa Ynez River basin. The SYRHM was developed by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency ( SBCWA). Over the last two decades, the SYRHM has been expanded and modified in consultation with the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Committee. The Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

606
DRAFT
model is written in Microsoft Quick Basic code and is publicly available from SBCW A. The SYRHM has been expanded by Stetson Engineers for fish flow operations, surface water salinity, and State Water Project imports ( Stetson, 2004).

In all ofthe model runs, watershed runoffbased on historical hydrology is routed through the Santa Ynez River basin and alternatives are varied based on the differences in Cachuma Reservoir operations, State Water Proj ect (S WP) water deliveries, and municipal and industrial pumping by the City ofSolvang. The impacts to surface water and ground- water conditions downstream ofCachuma Reservoir and Solvang river wells are then compared among the alternatives.

Figure 1 shows how flows ofthe Santa Ynez River are routed through the Santa Ynez River basin. The SYRHM includes operations of Juncal, Gibraltar, and Bradbury Dams, the Santa Ynez River alluvial ground- water basins, and Santa Ynez River recharge ( percolation) in Lompoc basin.

The model uses historical records of rainfall, runoff, evaporation, and tunnel infiltration for the period 1918 through 1993. Reservoir releases, diversions, streamflow percolation, ground- water pumping, and depletions are based on simulated model operations using monthly time steps. The model includes the Gibraltar operations under the Upper Santa Ynez River Operations Agreement, and the Cachuma operations under the SWRCB Order WR 73- 37 as amended by WR 89- 18. As indicated above, the model has been expanded to include fish flow operations, surface water salinity, and SWP water deliveries through the Bradbury Dam outlet works ( Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model Manual, April 2004). The model expansion for surface water salinity and the SWP imports was done in consultation with the Santa Ynez River Water Quality Technical Committee.

The Santa Ynez River between Bradbury Dam and Lompoc Narrows is divided into three main subunits in the model: ( 1) Bradbury Dam- Solvang ( Santa Ynez subarea); ( 2) Solvang- Buellton Bend ( Buellton sub- area); and ( 3) Buellton Bend- Narrows ( Santa Rita sub- area). Recently, the SBCW A expanded the operation model ( SYRHM) to incorporate a detailed version ofthe BradburySolvang reach, in which the reach is divided into 12 segments between tributaries. This allows for a direct modeling oftributary flow contributions in the Bradbury Dam- Solvang reach ofthe SYRHM.

This version of the model is referred to as SYRHM 498, and was used for the analyses of the Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7.DOC

607
DRAFT
Biological Assessment resulting in the Biological Opinion. The same version ofthe model ( SYRHM 498) has been used for the analyses ofthe Cachuma water rights draft EIR. The same version is also used for the impact analyses of the City of Solvang' s wells as provided in this memorandum. The City of Solvang' s wells are located near Solvang Bridge ( also sometimes referred to as Alisal or Mission Bridge), which is right on the boundary between the Santa Ynez and Buellton sub- areas.

2.2 CACHUMA FISH FLOW OPERATIONS
Releases from Cachuma Reservoir for steelhead rearing habitat and passage have been modeled for two sets ofoperating criteria in the SYRHM. Both are derived from the issuance ofthe Biological Opinion ( BO) by the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) ( Sep. 2000) and the Lower Santa Ynez Fish Management Plan ( FMP) ( Oct. 2000). The first set of operating criteria involves releases for steelhead rearing associated with the interim phase, as outlined in the BO and FMP. The interim phase of Cachuma fish flow operations is occurring currently. The second set of operating criteria involves releases for steelhead rearing and passage associated with the final phase ( long term) as outlined in the BO and FMP. One element that is common to both sets of the fish release operating criteria is the conjunctive operation of water rights releases with fish releases. This conjunctive use operation would extend the period oftime each year when instream flows improve fisheries habitat for oversummering and juvenile rearing within the mainstem river.

Interim ( present- condition) flow targets in the Santa Ynez River at the Highway 154 Bridge are shown in Table 2.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

608
DRAFT
TABLE 2

INTERIM MAIN STEM SANTA YNEZ RIVER REARING TARGET FLOWS BASED ON

BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Lake Cachuma
Reservoir Spill Target Flow Target Site
Storage
120, 000 AF Spill> 20, 000 AF 5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
120, 000 AF Spill < 20,000 AF or No Spill 2.5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge 120, 000 AF No Spill 1.5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
30,000 AF No Spill
Periodic Release;
Stilling Basin and Long Pool .:
s30AF per month
Source: Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. October 2, 2000, pg. 3-12.

In years when Cachuma Reservoir spills 20,000 acre- feet or more, a target flow of 5 cfs will be maintained at the Highway 154 Bridge. In years when Cachuma Reservoir does not spill or spills less than 20, 000 acre- feet, the Highway 154 target flow will be determined at the start ofeach month based on reservoir storage: 2.5 cfs when storage is greater than 120, 000 acre- feet and 1.5 cfs when storage is less than 120, 000 acre- feet. Periodic releases to refresh the Stilling Basin and Long Pool will be made when storage is less than 30, 000 acre- feet. In addition, the BO requires a 2 cfs minimum flow in Hilton Creek once a pump is installed as a part of the terms and conditions to implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No. 2 ofthe Biological Opinion. Also, both the BO and FMP under the interim phase include a provision that the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation ( USBR) shall maintain residual pool depth in Alisal and Refugio reaches downstream ofthe Highway 154 Bridge during spill years and the first year after spill years ifsteelhead are present. Because the quantity of water needed to maintain residual pool depth has not yet been determined and is necessary only when steelhead are present, this provision has not been included in the SYRHM.

Final ( long term) flow targets in the Santa Ynez River for steelhead habitat are shown in Table 3.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

609
DRAFT
TABLE 3

FINAL PHASE MAINSTEM SANTA YNEZ RIVER REARING TARGET FLOWS BASED ON

BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Lake Cachuma Storage Reservoir Spill Target Flow Target Site 120, 000 AF Spill> 20, 000 AF 10 cfs Highway 154 Bridge 120, 000 AF Spill> 20, 000 AF 1.5 cfs \) Alisal Road Bridge 120, 000 AF
Spill < 20, 000 AF or
5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
No Spill
120, 000 AF No Spill 2.5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
30, 000 AF
Spill < 20, 000 AF or

1.5 cfs \) Alisal Road Bridge 2)
No Spill
30, 000 AF No Spill
Periodic Release;
Stilling Basin and Long Pool :
s30AF per month
1) When rainbow troutlsteelhead are present in the Alisal Reach. 2) This target will be met in the year immediately following a year with spill> 20,000 AF.

Source: Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, October 2, 2000, pg. 3-9.

In years when Cachuma Reservoir spills 20, 000 acre- feet or more, a target flow of 10 cfs will be maintained at the Highway 154 Bridge up to the capacity ofHilton Creek supplemental watering system of 10 cfs. In years when Cachuma Reservoir does not spill or spills less than 20,000 acrefeet, the Highway 154 target flow will be determined at the start of each month based on reservoir storage: 5.0 cfs when storage is greater than 120, 000 acre- feet and 2.5 cfs when storage is less than 120, 000 acre- feet. Periodic releases to refresh the Stilling Basin and Long Pool will be made when storage is less than 30,000 acre- feet. In addition, the BO requires a 2 cfs minimum flow in Hilton Creek once a pump is installed as a part ofthe terms and conditions to implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No.2. Also, both the BO and FMP under the final phase the USBR shall provide a target flow of 1.5 cfs at Alisal Road Bridge in years with spill greater than 20,000 acre- feet and the first year after such spill years if steelhead are present.

In addition, under the final implementation phase ofthe BO and FMP, specific volumes of water are dedicated for the " Fish Passage Account" ( 3,200 acre- feet) and for the " Adaptive Management Account" ( 500 acre- feet) for a total of3,700 acre- feet. The water in these two accounts is allowed to carry- over from one year to the next; however, the accounts are deemed to spill first Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IOATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. 00C

610
DRAFT
and are then reset to their maximum amount of 3,700 acre- feet. Water in the passage account is planned to be used to supplement storms by augmenting the descending limb of the storm hydro graph below Bradbury Dam. Table 4 lists some ofthe passage supplementation criteria which were incorporated into analyses for the Biological Opinion and Fish Management Plan.

TABLE 4

PASSAGE SUPPLEMENTATION CRITERIA
Passage releases will be made in years following a spill until accounts have run out Passage releases will only occur January through May.

Passage releases will only occur during a storm and there is continuous flow to the ocean.

Santa Ynez River at Solvang reaches 25 cfs during a storm 151 Storm in January may not be supplemented
Cachuma releases through outlet works based on matching Cachuma inflow decay curve and boosting storm peak to 150 cfs at Solvang
The modeled fish releases for rearing and passage in these analyses for the City of Solvang use the same model programming code for releases for steelhead rearing habitat and passage as used in previous model runs for the BO, FMP, and SWCRB draft EIR and are completely compatible.

2.3 CACHUMA RESERVOIR SURCHARGING AND MAXIMUM STORAGE CAPACITIES The Cachuma Lake bathymetric survey of year 2000 ( MNSCE, Oct. 2000) shows that Cachuma Lake capacity at elevation 750. 0 feet msl is 188, 035 acre- feet, a reduction of2, 374 acrefeet from the year 1989 survey capacity of 190, 409 acre- feet. Table 5 shows the maximum surface elevation and storage capacity associated with various surcharge quantities based on the 2000 survey for the alternatives listed in Table 1 of 0, 0.75, and 3.0 feet. Currently, Cachuma reservoir is surcharged 0.75 feet above the historical maximum elevation of 750. 0 feet.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F: IOATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. 00C

611
DRAFT
TABLES

CACHUMA RESERVOIR SURCHARGE
Surcharge
Maximum Maximum Storage Difference from Maximum
feet)
Elevation Storage No Surcharge Surface Area
feet) ( acre- feet) ( acre- feet) ( acres)
0 750. 0 188, 035 0 3,048

0.75 750. 75 190, 336 2,301 3,076

3.0 753. 0 197, 343 9,308 3,155

2.4 CITY OF SOLVANG RIVER WELL PUMPING
Municipal river well pumping is handled in the SYRHM by using net pumping, which implicitly includes return flows. Typically, urban areas have a higher municipal return flow percentage (> 50%) while more rural areas have a lower municipal return flow percentage. This analysis uses a municipal return flow of 34% consistent with the SYRHM. This estimate roughly matches estimates by the SBCW A in 1991, which examined return flows from each water purveyor in the basin and determined that 4,485 acre- feet, or 32%, of 14,016 acre- feet of water produced returned to the basin for reuse. In 1992, Stetson Engineers estimated municipal return flows of 30 percent for ID #1 and 40 percent for the City ofSolvang ( Stetson, 1992). In addition, the municipal return flows in the SYRHM are assumed to return within the same month.

Table 6 shows both the net and gross pumping by the City of Solvang used for these analyses, including the three scenarios ofCity ofSolvang' s gross pumping from the Santa Ynez River wells of 600; 2,400; and 3,600 acre- feet per year. The three scenarios also correspond to current pumping, four times current pumping, and six times current pumping, respectively. The annual pumping of 600 acre- feet represents the average amount of water pumped from the river wells by the City of Solvang in years 2000 ( 787 acre- feet) and 2001 ( 465 acre- feet).

The City ofSolvang Water System Master Plan Update ( Table 7, Provost and Pritchard, May 2002) provides the proposed river well pumping and represents the buildout condition of2, 400 acre- feet Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7.DOC

612
TABLE 6

CITY OF SOLVANG MONTHLY DIVERSIONS FROM SANTA YNEZ RIVER WELLS

SIMULATED IN SANTA YNEZ RIVER HYDROLOGY MODEL ( SYRHM)
Currently Used in SYRHM 1)
Proposed Water System Master Plan2 Maximum un
Solvang River Wells - 600 acre- feet/ year Solvang River Wells - 2,400 acre- feet/ year Solvang River We of Net % of Net
Difference
Annual
Gross
Volume Annual
Gross
Volume
w/ Current Gross
Demand
Volume Pumped Pumped4) DemandS)
Volume Pumped Pumped4) SYRHMNet Volume Pumped
Pumping6)
acre- feet cfs acre- feet acre- feet cfs acre- feet acre- feet acre- feet cfs Jan 3.8 22.8 0.37 15. 05 6.25 151 2.46 99. 66 84. 61 305. 75 4.97 Feb 3.3 19.8 0.36 13.07 2.9 70 1.26 46.20 33.13 276. 16 4.97 Mar 5 30 0.49 19.80 4.9 117 1.90 77. 22 57. 42 305. 75 4.97 Apr 7.5 45 0.76 29. 70 7.4 178 2.99 117. 48 87.78 295. 89 4.97 May 10.8 64.8 1.05 42.77 8.4 202 3.29 133. 32 90.55 305. 75 4.97 June 13. 3 79. 8 1.34 52. 67 10. 8 259 4.35 170. 94 118. 27 295. 89 4.97 Jul 14.9 89.4 1.45 59. 00 10.6 253 4.11 166. 98 107. 98 305. 75 4.97 Aug 14.2 85.2 1.39 56.23 12 288 4.68 190. 08 133. 85 305. 75 4.97 Sep 11.7 70.2 1.18 46. 33 12.2 293 4.92 193. 38 147. 05 295. 89 4.97 Oct 6.7 40. 2 0.65 26.53 8.8 211 3.43 139. 26 112. 73 305. 75 4.97 Nov 4.6 27. 6 0.46 18.22 8.2 196 3.29 129. 36 111. 14 295. 89 4.97 Dec 4.2 25. 2 0.41 16.63 7.55 182 2.96 120. 12 103. 49 305. 75 4.97 100 600 396 100 2,400 1,584 1,188 3,600
Notes
J) SYRHM includes a total 0/ 2000 acre- feet per year a/ net river pumping/ or municipal demand, including City a/Solvang, SYRWCD ID No. 2) Table 7, Water System Master Plan Update, May 2002, p. 15 3) The City a/ Solvang has filed a petition/ or a time extension with the SWRCB. 4) A return flow 0/ 34% is assumed.
5) January and December monthly pumping reduced by . 05 percent/ rom Table 7 ( see note # 2) to make annual total equal 100 percent 6) The difference with the current net pumping is the component added to the model/ or increased Solvang river well pumping.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

DRAFT
per year. The monthly percentage of annual demand in the Water Master Plan is based on 2000 and 2001 seasonal demands, and the river well volume represents the amount of water needed from the Santa Ynez River underflow to meet average day demand. The net pumping amounts corresponding to the increased Solvang gross pumping of2, 400 and 3,600 acre- feet are used in the model analysis. The SYRHM assumes that the well yields for these increased pumping scenarios would not decrease even during critical droughts, so these analyses are considered conservative.

2.5 MODEL LIMITATIONS OF THE SYRHM
The intended use ofthe SYRHM is for comparative purposes between the EIR alternatives.

The simulated flow data generated from the SYRHM is not meant to be predictive, but to be used as an analytical tool for statistical and comparative purposes. Since the model is used for comparative analyses, some ofthe inherent inaccuracies in the model are expected to cancel out when comparing the results of one scenario with another.

The SYRHM operations have some limitations because the model uses monthly time steps.

Other limitations of the SYRHM are related to real time management decisions. For example, WR89- 18 releases, project delivery reductions in times of shortages, and SWP deliveries could vary based on real time management decisions.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

614
DRAFT

3. SYRHM OPERATIONAL MODELING RESULTS

3.1 CACHUMA RESERVOIR OPERATIONS
The surface water budget for Cachuma Reservoir for all ofthe alternatives is shown in Table 7 for the hydrologic period 1918- 1993. Table 7 shows that on average over the hydrologic period, the amount of water passed through at Bradbury Dam, either by spills and leakage, water right releases, and fish releases, is relatively the same ( less than 1 % variation l ).

In summary, the major
changes to the Santa Ynez River flow system due to changes in Cachuma Reservoir operations are that when there are more low flow releases, such as for water rights or releases for fish, there are fewer spills or high flow releases.

The first four columns ( Alternative Nos. 1-4) in Table 7 show that the water to be used for steelhead rearing and passage releases under the interim phase ( Alt 2) and final phase ( Alts 3A and 3C) of the BO comes not just from the surcharge ( i. e., reduction in spills) but also from a reduction in water right releases and Cachuma Project deliveries. Table 7 shows that water right releases, on average, are reduced significantly under the fish release alternatives ( Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4) when compared as a percentage ofwater right releases without fish release requirements ( Alternative No. 1). Project deliveries are reduced the most during critical drought periods, as discussed in a later section of this memorandum.

Table 7 shows that the largest difference in Cachuma Project operations for increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios ( Alternative Nos. 5-12) is an increase in water rights releases.

For example, under Alt 3C with fish flow operations and surcharge, the difference in water rights releases is about 540 acre- feet per year between Solvang river well pumping scenarios of 600 afy Alternative No. 4) and 3,600 afy ( Alternative No. 8). The increase in water rights releases from Cachuma
1 Note: The precipitation and evaporation vary for each ofthe EIR alternatives due to differences in the surface area ofthe reservoir.

Also, Tecolote Tunnel infiltration is not shown on these tables but is considered a component of the Project yield. Tecolote Tunnel infiltration averages about 2,050 acre-feet/year for the period 1918-1993 and 1,620 acre-feet/year during the drought period 1947-1951.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\DATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

615
Alternative No. 1
Fish Flow Operations/ Surcharge Alt 1
City of Solvang Pumping ( afy) 600
INFLOW
Runoff 74,171
Precipitation 3,869
SWPwater 2)
0 Total Inflow 78,040

OUTFLOW
Evaporation 10,876
SpillslLeakage 37,580
Project Deliveries ( no tunnel) 3) 23,262
WR89-18 releases 6,322
FishlHabitat releases 0
SWP Exchange 4) 0
SWP Deliveries to South Coast 0
Total Outflow 78,040
Change in Storage 0
Cachuma Spills & Releases 43,902
Difference from A1t 2 (AFY) - 176
Difference from Alt 2 (%) - 0.4%
No. ofSpill months 84
No. ofSpill Water Years 26
No. ofSpill Water Years > 20,000 af 17
NOTES
TABLE 7

SURFACE WATER BUDGETS FOR CACHUMA RESERVOIR
AVERAGE VALVES FROM SYRHM, 1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS) 1)
ACRE- FEET !YEAR)

EIR AL TERNA TIVES
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Alt2 Alt3A Alt3C Alt 1 Alt2 Alt3A Alt3C
600 600 600 3600 3600 3600 3600
74,171 74,171 74,171 74,171 74,171 74,171 74,171
3,869 3,827 3,935 3,856 3,847 3,803 3,911
7,619 7,648 7,663 0 7,619 7,648 7,663
85,659 85,646 85,769 78,027 85,637 85,622 85,745
10,876 10,752 11,067 10,841 10,819 10,682 11,000
36,693 36,037 35,415 37,193 36,219 35,639 35,032
23,069 22,855 23,076 23,252 23,047 22,734 22,988
6,023 5,658 5,737 6,751 6,581 6,236 6,273
1,362 2,690 2,715 0 1,334 2,677 2,692
2,512 - 2,490 - 2,512 0 - 2,512 - 2,490 - 2,512
10,131 10,138 10,175 0 10,131 10,138 10,175
85,642 85,640 85,673 78,037 85,619 85,616 85,648
17 6 96 - 10 18 6 97
MEAN WATER PASSING THROVGH CACHUMA ( Spills and Releases) 44,078 44,385 43,867 43,944 44,134 44,552 43,997
307 - 211 - 134 56 474 - 81

0.7% - 0.5% - 0.3% 0.1% 1.1% - 0.2%
82 80 78 84 81 80 78
26 25 25 26 26 25 25
16 15 15 17 15 14 14
1) See Table 1for description ofalternatives; fish releases include rearing and passage flows. 2) Includes SWP deliveries in outlet works and into Cachuma Reservoir. 3) Does not include Tecolote Tunnel infiltration which averages about 2,050 acre- feetlyear 4) Includes SWP exchange with SYRWCD ID No 1.

Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 13
9 Alt 1
2400
74,171
3,863
0 78,034
10,866
37,331
23,266
6,570
0 0 -
0 78,033
1 43,901
177

0.4%
83 26
17 DRAFT
Reservoir with increased Solvang pumping is due to an increase in water production and associated increase in the total dewatered storage levels, which affect the Above Narrows Account. Fish flow operations are about the same when Solvang increases well pumping because ( 1) the primary management reach for fish flows is the Highway 154 reach, located about seven miles upstream of the City of Solvang river wells; ( 2) the increase in water rights releases conjunctively decreases the flows needed for fish; and ( 3) the number of spill years greater than 20, 000 acre- feet, which triggers fish flow targets at the Alisal Bridge, is reduced.

Figures 2a- b and 3a- b show the frequency of releases and spills from Cachuma Reservoir for all alternatives on different scales of flow. Figures 2a- b indicate that flow distribution frequencies under the various alternatives in terms of high flows are nearly similar. Figures 3a- b show the differences among the alternatives for flows less than 50 cfs. The alternatives with fish flow operations ( SWRCB Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3C) show higher rates and longer duration in flows between 0 and 10 cfs. The alternatives with increased Solvang river well pumping Alternative Nos. 5-12) show higher rates and longer duration in flows between 10 and 50 cfs.

3.2 LAKE STORAGE AND ELEVATION
The minimum storage level ( minimum pool) is set to 12, 000 acre- feet, which occurs during the critical drought of 1947 -1951 for all alternatives. Table 8 summarizes average Lake Cachuma elevation and storage for each alternative. In general, the median elevation, storage, and surface area for all alternatives are very similar.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ OATA\ 1944\ SURFACEWATER\ TM SW RESULTS V7. 00C