Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project · Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Prepared by: ... Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model

Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Prepared by: City of Santa Maria 110 S. Pine Street, Room 101 Santa Maria, California 93458 Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc.

September 2013

Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Prepared by:

City of Santa Maria 110 South Pine Street, No. 101 Santa Maria, California 93458

Contact:

Larry Appel, Director of Community Development City of Santa Maria Community Development

(805) 925-0951

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D

San Luis Obispo, California 93401

September 2013

This report produced on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Atlas Copco Mafi-Trench Project SEIR Table of Contents

City of Santa Maria i

Draft Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project SEIR

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope and Content ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Lead, Responsible and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Current Property Owner ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Applicant Representative .................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4 Existing Site Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2-2 2.5 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2-10 2.7 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................ 2-10 3.0 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Regional Setting................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Site Specific Setting ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Cumulative Development .................................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.2 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 5.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 5-2 5.3 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 5-2 5.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 5-4 5.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 5-7 5.6 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 5-9 5.7 Land Use/Policy Consistency ........................................................................................ 5-11 5.8 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-12 5.9 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 5-12 5.10 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 5-13


City of Santa Maria ii

5.11 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 5-14 5.12 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 5-14 5.13 Transportation and Circulation ..................................................................................... 5-14 5.14 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 5-16 6.0 Other CEQA-Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Growth Inducing Effects .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Effects ........................................................................................ 6-3 6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ............................................................... 6-3 7.0 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Environmental Analysis of Alternatives ......................................................................... 7-6 7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................ 7-9 8.0 References and EIR Preparers 8.1 References ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 EIR Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 8-6 9.0 Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 9-1 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Project Site Location ..................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 4.1-1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map ............................................. 4.1-3 Figure 4.2-1 Natural Communities ................................................................................................ 4.2-4 Figure 4.2-2 Sensitive Elements Reported in the California Natural Diversity Database and Federally Designated Critical Habitat within 2 Miles ............................................................................................... 4.2-5 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance after Mitigation – Proposed Project......................................................................................................... ES-9 Table ES-2 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance after Mitigation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project ....................................................................... ES-19 Table 3-1 City of Santa Maria Cumulative Projects List ........................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 County of Santa Barbara (Santa Maria Valley) Cumulative Projects List .................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 4.1-1 Santa Barbara County Agricultural Conversion 2008-2010 ................................. 4.1-1 Table 4.1-2 Soil Characteristics and Capability Class for Soils within the Project Site ............................................................................................................ 4.1-4 Table 4.1-3 Storie Index Grades for Soils within the Project Site ............................................ 4.1-4


City of Santa Maria iii

Table 4.1-4 Summary of LESA Model Score Sheet .................................................................... 4.1-8 Table 4.3-1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................ 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Daily and Annual Construction Emissions ............................................................ 4.3-7 Table 4.3-3 Operational Emissions .............................................................................................. 4.3-9 Table 5-1 Construction GHG Emissions ..................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-2 Operational GHG Emissions ....................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-3 Combined GHG Emissions Total ............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-4 JC Carter Operation GHG Emissions ......................................................................... 5-6 Table 7-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 7-6 Appendices (included on CD attached to back cover)

Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Responses Appendix B: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Results Appendix C: Biological Resources Assessment Appendix D: Air Quality Assessment Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Appendix F: Sound Level Assessment Appendix G: Traffic and Circulation Study


City of Santa Maria iv

This page intentionally left blank.

Atlas Copco Mafi-Trench Project SEIR Executive Summary

City of Santa Maria ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and the project alternatives, the environmental impacts associated with the project and alternatives, and required and recommended mitigation measures. PROJECT SYNOPSIS Lead Agency City of Santa Maria Community Development Department 110 South Pine Street, #101 Santa Maria, CA 93458 Current Property Owner Richard G. Sweet Director of Utilities City of Santa Maria 2065 East Main Street Santa Maria, CA 93454 Project Applicant Representative Thomas Reay Vice President, Director of Architecture Omni Design Group, Inc. 711 Tank Farm Road, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Description The project is comprised of a General Plan amendment/zone change and review of a Planned Development Permit to allow a 260,000 square foot facility on a vacant 20-acre site for manufacturing, testing and engineering hydrocarbon expander-compressors used in natural gas refineries, and turbines and cryogenic pumps used in applications across the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) industry (the project) in the City of Santa Maria. The project would consolidate two existing facilities, including an existing facility in Santa Maria for manufacturing, testing, engineering and administrative offices for hydrocarbon expander‐compressors, and an existing facility in Costa Mesa, California for manufacturing, testing, and engineering turbines and cryogenic pumps. Operational impacts from these existing facilities would cease with implementation of the proposed project, and would offset the greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed facility. The project would be constructed in two phases and would also include an electrical substation, electrical control house, test stand, aerial flare, railroad spur, containment structure, septic



holding tank, two paint booths, one sandblast booth and various above ground water and gas storage tanks. The property is identified as a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 117-820-002. The new proposed plant in Santa Maria is expected to have 275 employees for the first phase of development, all relocated from the existing Atlas Copco/Mafi-Trench facility in Santa Maria, and an additional up to 99 employees for a total of 374 employees, during the second phase of development. ALTERNATIVES The Alternatives analysis evaluates four alternatives to the proposed project that describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Project Objectives of the City of Santa Maria The City’s objectives for the Atlas Copco Mafi-Trench Project are as follows:

1) Facilitate retention, expansion and consolidation of well-established local businesses that offer a substantial number of jobs in varying pay ranges for local residents with various skill levels.

2) Prevent loss of City tax revenue and migration of high-paying/higher skill level jobs from the

community.

3) Encourage applicants to locate on sites that can adequately be provided with all necessary municipal services.

4) Encourage applicants to locate on sites sufficiently sized to accommodate existing operations and

potential expansions.

5) Discourage the location of incompatible uses on adjacent sites. The following goals, policies and objectives from the City’s General Plan support this objective: Economic Development

Promote high quality commercial and industrial development [GP Land Use Goal L.U.10].

The City will address the present imbalance between the land area designated for residential development and for those areas designated industrial and commercial development [GP Land Use Goal L.U.11].

The City should utilize a variety of techniques and tools to induce clean, employment-

generating commerce and industry [GP Land Use Policy L.U.4]



Effectively target the recruitment of commercial, industrial, and retail enterprises that best fit Santa Maria’s market and infrastructure. Continue to identify target industries [GP Economic Development Core Policy 1].

Determine the best and most effective ways to increase the wealth of the residents of the

Santa Maria Valley. Develop a framework for creativity and seek specific projects to put that framework into action [GP Economic Development Policy, page 27].

Support and promote existing and planned programs that will aid economic

development efforts [GP Economic Development Goal, page 60].

Attract educational institutions including, but not limited to, trade schools and private colleges, in order to raise the skills of Santa Maria’s labor force [GP Economic Development Policy, page 52]

Land Use Compatibility

To protect present and future Santa Maria residents and workers from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise levels [GP Noise Goal N.1].

Regulate the placement and construction of new noise generators, to avoid excessive

interior and exterior noise level impacts on adjacent noise sensitive properties; and of new noise receptors (such as housing and schools), to minimize the negative effects of local noise generation [GP Noise Policy N.1.b].

To maintain and reduce noise to acceptable levels throughout the community [GP Noise

Objective N.1.b]

Provide for and maintain well-located commercial and industrial sites for new development that are adequately served by highways, railroads, utilities, and other municipal services, and do not impact established residential areas [GP Land Use Element Objective L.U.2c].

The City should utilize a variety of techniques and tools to induce clean, employment-

generating commerce and industry [GP Land Use Element Policy L.U.4].

Determine the commercial and industrial needs of the City, and determine the methods to induce their location and operation in Santa Maria [GP Land Use Element Objective L.U.4].

Environment

Preserve natural biological resources and expand the Santa Maria Urban Forest [GP

Resource Management Goal 3].

Ensure that all development near sensitive habitats avoids significant impacts to these areas [GP Resource Management Objective 3.1.]



Public Safety

Discourage construction of habitable structures in areas susceptible to wildland fires and assure the availability of adequate fire fighting capabilities [GP Safety Element Policy 3].

Enforce the Uniform Fire Code as it relates to fire hazards, including hazardous activities involving fires, oil wells and oil pipelines, and the storage of explosive materials [GP Safety Element Objective 3.1.d].

Achieve a 5 minute response capability to all areas within the City Limits and maintain adequate water storage standards for fire flow pressure requirements [GP Safety Element Objective 3.1.a].

Minimize the community’s risk from potential hazards associated with hazardous materials [GP Safety Element Goal 9].

Support the efforts of the City Fire Department, and coordinate efforts with the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Health Division and the California Highway Patrol, to require the proper use, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials [GP Safety Element Policy 9].

Require businesses that use and store hazardous materials to follow the regulations contained in the Uniform Fire Code and other and other appropriate State and Federal regulations [GP Safety Element Objective 9.1a].

Plan for and provide a safe transport of hazardous materials and waste by designating safe truck routes that have limited or no exposure to residential areas [GP Safety Element Objective 9.1.c]..

Enforce the hazardous material regulations of the Uniform Fire Code and other State and Federal regulations [GP Safety Element Implementation Program, page S.37].

Maintain an emergency preparedness plan to respond to natural and man-made disasters [GP Safety Element Goal 10].

Project Objectives of the Applicant The applicant’s primary objectives for the project are to:

Provide a new centralized location for two related components of the project applicant’s operations.

Increase manufacturing, testing and engineering productivity and capacity of the project applicant’s operations.

Increase efficiency and productivity to provide equipment for high demand sectors. Create an economically viable, quality project that is designed in compatibility with the existing

and planned surrounding uses in the project site’s vicinity.



Provide new employment and career opportunities to the City of Santa Maria’s resident workforce.

Maintain existing workforce. In 2006 the Santa Maria City Council certified the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and approved the annexation of 252 acres, including the 20-acre project site of the proposed project, to be used for treated wastewater percolation and groundwater recharge ponds, pipelines, service roads, a Police impound yard, a Humane Society animal shelter, and a City corporation yard. The proposed Atlas Copco Mafi-Trench Project is to be located in the area originally planned for the City corporation yard described in the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR. The Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR identified and programmatically evaluated site-specific impacts that could occur should the project site be developed. Section 7.0, Alternatives, of the EIR evaluated four potential alternatives to the project, including an alternate location (Alternative 1), a reduced project (Alternative 2), a reduced site (Alternative 3), and a no project alternative (Alternative 4). Additional alternatives considered in this SEIR include site-specific alternatives of No Project/Existing Zoning (Alternative 1), Reduced Project (Alternative 2), and Reduced Site/Disturbance (Alternative 3). This discussion identifies the environmentally superior alternative by assessing the degree to which each alternative avoids significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The CEQA Guidelines do not define a precise methodology regarding the determination of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. For the purposes of this analysis, each alternative has been compared within each issue area to the proposed project, and a determination has been made as to whether the alternative was superior, inferior, or similar to the proposed project. Decision makers and the community in general may choose to emphasize one issue or another, which could lead to differing conclusions regarding environmental superiority. If the No Project Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for a given issue area, the development scenario among the remaining alternatives that produces the fewest impacts is noted, in accordance with CEQA. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative (Alternative 1) would not significantly reduce or increase any of the project impacts identified in this SEIR. Overall construction and operational activities on the site would be reduced through this alternative; however, based on the existing environmental setting and conditions, development of the site under existing zoning would not avoid potential significant environmental effects, including significant impacts to agricultural resources. The Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2) would reduce the overall amount of site disturbance and eliminate the test stand. Therefore, the project would reduce impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland, and the amount of air contaminant emissions, compared to the proposed project. Although the agricultural conversion impacts of this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable, this alternative would be considered environmentally superior among the project alternatives due to the reduction in the magnitude of this impact. The Reduced Site/Disturbance Alternative (Alternative 3) would result in similar project impacts as identified for the proposed project. However, potential impacts to biological resources



(jurisdictional areas) would be to a lesser extent than the proposed project or Alternative 2 as restricting access to one entrance would reduce potential impacts to the north drainage ditch. The Alternative Project Site (Alternative 4) would reduce impacts on agricultural and biological resources when compared to the project because this alternative is located on a developed, urbanized site. However, this alternative is located on a site that is in close proximity to both an existing park and existing concentrated residential subdivisions. Therefore, this alternative would result in more severe, but similarly less than significant, impacts related to construction and operational noise exposure, as well as exposure to air contaminants emissions, when compared to the proposed project. As discussed in this SEIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to agricultural resources. Alternative 4 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level but would create more severe impacts related to noise and air contaminant emissions. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts. However, Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of Prime Farmland converted to urban use when compared to the project and other alternatives. Therefore, Alternative 2 is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. EIR APPROACH In 2006 the Santa Maria City Council certified the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Environmental Impact Report (EIR)1, and approved the annexation of 252 acres to be used for treated wastewater percolation and groundwater recharge ponds, pipelines, service roads, a Police impound yard, a Humane Society animal shelter, and a City corporation yard. The proposed 20-acre project site for the Atlas Copco Mafi-Trench Project was identified in the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR as being the proposed location of the City corporation yard. Although the 2006 Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR addressed the site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts of disturbance of the site for an urban use, the proposed project represents substantial changes to the project evaluated in the 2006 EIR. Major revisions of the previous EIR are necessary due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Section 15062 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:

“When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

1 State Clearinghouse #: 2005121171



(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”

Since the proposed project represents substantial changes to the project evaluated in the City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR which require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, a Subsequent EIR has been prepared. This Subsequent EIR is a complete EIR that updates and expands upon the City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR by providing subsequent environmental analysis based on conditions which may have changed since the original EIR’s preparation. The original EIR is available for review at the Santa Maria Community Development Department office, located at 110 South Pine Street, #101, Santa Maria, California 93458. A summary of project site impacts and applicable mitigation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR is included within Table ES-1 below. AREAS OF CONCERN Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15123, this EIR acknowledges the areas of concern and issues to be resolved which are known to the City of Santa Maria or were raised during the scoping process. An Initial Study/NOP was prepared and circulated for a 30-day public review



period that began on July 30, 2013 and ended August 28, 2013. The Initial Study, NOP and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR. The following issues were identified by the Initial Study as having potentially significant impacts: • Agricultural Resources • Biology This EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies potentially significant environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the project, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR also addresses Air Quality impacts in detail. In addition, the EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-1 summarizes the identified environmental impacts for each issue area studied in the SEIR, recommended mitigation measures (if any), and the level of significance after mitigation. Table ES-1 contains the project-specific impacts sorted by impact level, followed by the cumulative impacts. Following Table ES-1, mitigation measures identified within the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR which remain applicable to the proposed project are listed. Class I impacts are defined as significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, which require a statement of overriding considerations to be made per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant, adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class III impacts are less than significant impacts. Potential project-specific and cumulative impacts previously identified in the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR and specifically identified for the proposed project are listed below in summary form. Class I – Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

Agricultural Resources Special-Status Wildlife Species

Class II – Significant Impacts that Can Be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels

Jurisdictional Waters Aesthetics/New Light & Glare Introduction Expansive Soils Hazards Construction Emissions



Class III – Less than Significant Impacts

Nesting Birds Visual Character Habitat Removal Ground-shaking Air Pollutant Emissions Odor Emissions Cumulative Loss of Agricultural Resources Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Cumulative Air Quality Emissions Cumulative Geology & Soils Impacts

Greenhouse gas emissions impacts were not evaluated in the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR because it was not a CEQA requirement to do so at the time of EIR preparation.

Table ES-1 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance after Mitigation – Proposed Project

Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation

CLASS I PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS (Significant and Unavoidable)

Agricultural Resources

Impact AG-1. The project would not result in any additional agricultural conversion impacts beyond those disclosed in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR. Nevertheless, the proposed project would impact prime soils and agriculturally productive lands compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would result in Class I, significant and unavoidable, impacts to agricultural resources.

The following mitigation measure from the Wastewater Treatment Plant EIR would continue to apply to the proposed project: AG-1(a) Agricultural Mitigation Options. While no mitigation measures are available to fully mitigate the potential loss of prime agricultural farmland, the City is encouraged to work cooperatively with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the Department of Conservation to pursue actions that could provide partial mitigation. Among the methods that could be pursued include: Mitigation Bank. The City could set aside a

mitigation fee to invest in supporting commercial viability of the remaining agricultural land in the project area, County, or region through a mitigation bank that invests in agricultural infrastructure, water supplies or marketing.

Farmland Protection. The City could

protect farmland in the project area or elsewhere in the County through the use of less than permanent long-term restrictions on use such as a 20-year Farmland Security Zone contract (Government Code § 51296 et. Seq.) or a 10- year Williamson Act contract (Government Code § 51200 et. Seq.).

Impacts could be mitigated to some extent, but not to a less than significant level. Even with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be Class I, Significant and Unavoidable.





Prime Soil Relocation. The prime soil could be relocated over the period of deferred development, but this approach would require that Santa Maria Valley farmers enter into an agreement to trade less productive soils in exchange for prime soils. This approach could be logistically difficult and could have residual impacts related to traffic and air quality, as it would require substantial earth movement and truck transportation.

No new feasible mitigation measures are available that would mitigate the loss of prime agricultural resources.

CLASS II PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

Biological Resources

Impact B-1. The proposed project has potential to result in direct impacts to special-status wildlife species, if present during implementation of the project. With implementation of avoidance and minimization measures as mitigation, impacts would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

B-1(a) California Red-legged Frog Prior to start of project activities, a

qualified biologist shall conduct a “tailgate” education session to familiarize all personnel conducting project activities with the identification and life-history of CRLF.

If feasible, initial ground disturbing activities and any work associated with the northern ditch shall be conducted between May 1 and October 31 during dry weather conditions to minimize the potential for encountering CRLF. Work shall be restricted to daylight hours.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the project site within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area shall include the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100 foot buffer. If any life stage of CRLF is found within the survey area, the biologist shall revisit the site on subsequent days to determine if the CRLF has left the site. If the CRLF has not left the site after three days, the USFWS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action.

If construction must occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-activity clearance sweep prior to start of project activities within 48 hours after any rain events of 0.1 inches or greater or if wet conditions are present on site.

The work area shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such as silt fence) that shall be buried into the ground and extend at least three

Through informal consultation, USFWS and CDFW staff provided concurrence on August 13, 2013 (Pers. Comm. Standley, 2013) and September 6, 2013 (Pers. Comm. Potter, 2013), respectively that the project “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” CTS or CRLF and that the mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce the potential for any project related impacts . Therefore permitting under the federal or California ESA for either species is not required. Impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.




Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation feet above the ground to exclude CRLF from the work area. During any construction conducted between July 2 and April 30, the fence shall be inspected daily to assure that it is functioning properly to exclude CRLF from the work area. The fence shall remain in place throughout construction. Access roads shall be temporarily sealed off overnight using a section of fence that is anchored to the ground (e.g., fire hose filled with sand or sand bags can be used to anchor the bottom of the fence or the bottom must be buried).

Vegetation disturbance shall be the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the project.

All trash shall be removed from the site daily and disposed of properly to avoid attracting potential predators to the site.

No pets shall be permitted on-site during project activities.

All vehicles shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. All leaks shall be contained and cleaned up immediately to reduce the potential for soil/vegetation contamination.

All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from the drainage ditch at the northern edge of the property and in a location from where a spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water).

The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goals.

To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the qualified biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force, as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, shall be followed at all times.

No herbicide shall be used on-site. A City-approved biologist shall be

present on site during initial ground disturbance. If any life stage of CRLF is found, work shall cease within 100 feet of the CRLF and the USFWS contacted immediately to determine the appropriate course of action.





B-1(b) California Tiger Salamander Recommended Mitigation Measures

Prior to start of project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a “tailgate” education session to familiarize all personnel conducting project activities with the identification and life-history of CTS.

Initial ground disturbing activities and any work associated with the northern ditch shall be conducted between May 1 and October 31 during dry weather conditions to minimize the potential for encountering CTS. Work shall be restricted to daylight hours.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the project site within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities. The survey area shall include the proposed disturbance area and all proposed ingress/egress routes, plus a 100 foot buffer. If any life stage of CTS is found within the survey area, the biologist shall revisit the site on subsequent days to determine if the CTS has left the site. If the CTS has not left the site after three days, the USFWS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action.

If construction must occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-activity clearance sweep prior to start of project activities within 48 hours after any rain events of 0.1 inches or greater.

The work area shall be surrounded by a solid temporary exclusion fence (such as silt fence) that shall be buried into the ground and extend at least three feet above the ground to exclude CTS from the work area. During any construction conducted between July 2 and April 30, the fence shall be inspected daily to assure that it is functioning properly to exclude CTS from the work area. The fence shall remain in place throughout construction. Access roads shall be temporarily sealed off overnight using a section of fence that is anchored to the ground (e.g., fire hose filled with sand or sand bags can be used to anchor the bottom of the fence or the bottom must be buried).

Vegetation disturbance shall be the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the project.





All trash shall be removed from the site daily and disposed of properly to avoid attracting potential predators to the site.

No pets shall be permitted on-site during project activities.

All vehicles shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. All leaks shall be contained and cleaned up immediately to reduce the potential for soil/vegetation contamination.

All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from the drainage ditch at the northern edge of the property and in a location from where a spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water).

The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goals.

To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the qualified biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force shall be followed at all times.

No herbicide shall be used on-site. A City-approved biologist shall be

present on site during initial ground disturbance. If any life stage of CTS is found, work shall cease within 100 feet of the CTS and the USFWS and CDFW contacted immediately to determine the appropriate course of action.

B-1(c) Western Pond Turtle Recommended Mitigation Measures

A pre-construction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted not less than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction.

If western pond turtle is found and these individuals are likely to be killed or injured by construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to capture and relocate the animals from the project site before construction activities begin. A City-approved biologist(s) shall relocate the individuals the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat not likely to be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. The biologist(s) shall maintain sufficiently detailed records of




Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation any individual observed, captured, relocated, etc., including size, coloration, any distinguishing features and photographs (preferably digital) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to the project site.

A City-approved biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel prior to the start of construction. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the species and their habitats, the specific measures that will be implemented to conserve and protect them for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.

B-1(d) Western Spadefoot Toad Recommended Mitigation Measures

A pre-construction survey for western spadefoot toads shall be not less than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction.

If western spadefoot toads are found and these individuals are likely to be killed or injured by construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to capture and relocate the animals from the project site before construction activities begin. A City-approved biologist(s) shall relocate the individuals the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat not likely to be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. The biologist(s) shall maintain sufficiently detailed records of any individual observed, captured, relocated, etc., including size, coloration, any distinguishing features and photographs (preferably digital) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to the project site.

A City-approved biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel prior to the start of construction. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the species and their habitats, the specific measures that will be implemented to conserve and protect them for the current project, and the boundaries




Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.

A City-approved biologist shall be present on site during initial ground disturbance. Any western spadefoot toads that are unearthed during initial ground disturbance shall be relocated the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat not likely to be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. The biologist(s) shall maintain sufficiently detailed records of any individual observed, captured, relocated, etc., including size, coloration, any distinguishing features and photographs (preferably digital) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to the project site.

To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the qualified biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force shall be followed at all times.

B-1(e) American Badger Recommended Mitigation Measures

A pre-construction survey for active badger dens shall be conducted not less than two weeks prior to the initiation of construction. The surveys shall include a thorough walking survey of the entire site. The survey shall cover the entire area proposed for disturbance plus a 100-foot buffer.

Active dens located within the survey area shall be avoided during the breeding season (March 1 through June 30). A minimum buffer of 100 feet around the active den shall be demarcated by flagging or construction fencing installed one foot above ground to permit movement of badgers in and out of the buffer zone. If the den must be impacted, a biologist shall then use appropriate tracking and observation methods to determine when an active den is no longer in use.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel prior to the start of construction. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the species




Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation and their habitats, the specific measures that will be implemented to conserve and protect them for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.

Impact B-3 The proposed project may directly remove or indirectly impact a drainage ditch on-site and, thus, impact waters of the State. This impact would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

B-3 Jurisdictional Area Mitigation Measure The project applicant shall make a

preliminary jurisdictional determination and informally consult with the RWQCB to determine if this agency would assert jurisdiction over the northern ditch under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

If the RWQCB determines that they would assert jurisdiction over the northern ditch, a jurisdictional delineation shall be conducted by a City-approved biologist in accordance with the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (2008) to document the type, total acreage, precise location, and other attributes of the northern ditch. The results of the delineation shall be submitted to RWQCB for their review.

If the jurisdictional delineation confirms that jurisdictional areas subject to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act would be impacted by the proposed project, waste discharge requirements from RWQCB shall be acquired by the applicant. The impacted feature shall be mitigated at a ratio to be determined by the permitting agency but shall not be less than 1:1 (acres of habitat restored for acres of habitat lost) if mitigation areas (e.g., on-site drainage basins) are enhanced with riparian vegetation, or 2:1 if the feature is placed without riparian habitat enhancement.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.





CLASS III IMPACTS (Less than Significant)

Agricultural Resources

Impact AG-2. Development in accordance with the proposed project would be required to implement buffers in locations where proposed urban uses would abut agriculturally-designated land uses. With implementation of these buffers, the proposed project would not result in land use conflicts between urban uses and agricultural operations. This impact has been found not to be significant.

No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Air Quality

Impact AQ-1. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County. Therefore, the project would result in a Class III, less than significant, impact.


Impact AQ-2. The proposed project would not result in short-term construction emissions that would exceed the applicable SBCAPCD standards. In addition, the project would comply with SBCAPCD requirements related to dust control. Therefore, the project would result in a Class III, less than significant, impact.


Impact AQ-3. The proposed project would not result in long-term regional emissions that would exceed the applicable SBCAPCD daily operational emissions standards. Therefore, the project would result in a Class III, less than significant, impact.






Impact AQ-4. The proposed project would not expose any on- or off-site sensitive receptors to a substantial concentration of any hazardous air pollutant. Therefore, the project would result in a Class III, less than significant, impact.


Impact AQ-5. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project would result in a Class III, less than significant, impact.


Biological Resources

Impact B-2. Due to the lack of suitable habitat and level of disturbance on the site, the proposed project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts to nesting birds. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

No new mitigation measures would be required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Table ES-2 summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures previously identified for the project site in the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EIR which would apply to the proposed project and have not been superseded with more specific project-level impacts and mitigation.



Table ES-2 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance after Mitigation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Expansion Project EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project


CLASS II PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

Aesthetics

Impact AES-1. The proposed project will alter the terrain and introduce manmade features that have the potential to degrade views of the site, and introduce new sources of light and glare to the area that could affect nearby light-sensitive land uses and passing motorists. This alteration is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.

AES-1(a) Buildings. Proposed structures on the project site shall be one story, and clustered to the extent possible to preserve view corridors of surrounding hills. AES-1(b) Lighting Limitations. Prior to construction of any proposed structures, all proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans. The lighting plan shall incorporate lighting that directs light pools downward to prevent glare on adjacent and surrounding areas. Lights shall have solid sides and reflectors to further reduce lighting impacts by controlling light spillage. Light fixtures that shield adjacent properties from excessive brightness at night shall be included in the lighting plan. Non-glare lighting shall be used. Any signage that incorporates lighting shall be shielded to direct light towards the sign so tha

The implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce project-specific impacts to less than significantlevels.

Geology and Soils

Impact G-1. The project site is in a location that is subject to strong ground-shaking. Ground shaking has the potential to cause fill material to settle, destabilize slopes, and cause physical damage to structures, property, utilities and road access. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.

This mitigation measure has been updated as follows to reflect current building code information. G-1(a) CBC Compliance. Proposed site improvements shall be designed to standards no less than for Seismic Design Category D as designated by the latest edition of the California Building Code. For components of the project not specifically addressed in the CBC, design shall accommodate peak spectral acceleration of 0.82g at 0.2 seconds and a maximum peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.46g.

Compliance with the applicable requirements of the CBC, consistent with the mitigation measure, would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact G-2. Onsite development may be subject to hazards related to expansive or erosive soils. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.

G-2(a) Grading and Erosion Control Plan. A grading and erosion control plan that minimizes erosion, sedimentation and unstable slopes shall be prepared and implemented by developers of the proposed project. Such plans must include the following:

Methods such as retention basins, drainage diversion structures, spot grading, silt fencing/coordinated sediment trapping, straw bales, and sand bags shall be used to minimize erosion on slopes and siltation into Santa Maria River during grading and construction activities.

Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.



Table ES-2 Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance after Mitigation from the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Expansion Project EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project


Exposed soil stockpile areas shall be stabilized to prevent wind and water erosion, using methods approved by the Public Works Department and APCD. As a minimum, six inches of topsoil or silt/clay/sand mixture is to be used to stabilize the wind-erodable soils.

Landscaped areas adjacent to

structures shall be graded so that drainage is away from structures.

Project applicants shall limit excavation

and grading to the dry season of the year (typically April 15 to November 1, allowing for variations in weather) unless a Public Works Department approved erosion control plan is in place and all measures therein are in effect.

Documents

Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project · Atlas Copco – Mafi Trench Project Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Prepared by: ... Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model