Solvang Upland Wells Project

Transcription

DRAFT
Prepared For:
City of Solvang
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
(805) 367-5720 FAX (805) 367-5733
JUNE 2014
DRAFT
Solvang Upland Wells
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:
City of Solvang
Planning and Community Development
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Prepared by:
Meridian Consultants
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1.0-1
1.1
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1.0-1
1.2
Authority ....................................................................................................................... 1.0-1
1.3
Organization of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................... 1.0-1
1.4
Public and Agency Review of the Draft IS/MND ........................................................... 1.0-2
2.0
Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2.0-1
2.1
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2.0-1
2.2
Project Location ............................................................................................................ 2.0-1
2.3
Project Description ....................................................................................................... 2.0-1
2.4
Other Public Agency Required Approvals ................................................................... 2.0-17
3.0
Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3.0-1
3.1
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 3.0-1
3.2
Current City Water System ........................................................................................... 3.0-1
4.0
Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................ 4.0-1
4.1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................. 4.0-1
5.0
Environmental Analysis.............................................................................................................. 5.0-1
5.1
Aesthetics...................................................................................................................... 5.0-2
5.2
Agriculture and Forestry Resources.............................................................................. 5.0-6
5.3
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 5.0-9
5.4
Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 5.0-14
5.5
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 5.0-22
5.6
Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 5.0-25
5.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 5.0-29
5.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 5.0-32
5.9
Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 5.0-37
5.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ 5.0-43
5.11 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 5.0-45
5.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 5.0-46
5.13 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. 5.0-54
5.14 Public Services............................................................................................................. 5.0-55
5.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................... 5.0-57
5.16 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................................... 5.0-58
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 5.0-61
5.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................ 5.0-64
6.0
7.0
References ................................................................................................................................. 6.0-1
List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 7.0-1
001-002-14
i
June 2014
Appendices
A
B
C
D
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data
Biological Resource Survey Report
Cultural Resources Report
Noise Measurement Data
001-002-14
ii
June 2014
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.0-1
2.0-2
2.0-3
2.0-4
2.0-5
2.0-6
2.0-7
Page
Regional Location Map .............................................................................................................. 2.0-3
Site Vicinity................................................................................................................................. 2.0-4
Water Well Siting Map ............................................................................................................... 2.0-5
Proposed Well Site Locations..................................................................................................... 2.0-6
Well Locations 3 and 11 ............................................................................................................. 2.0-7
Well Locations 2 and 10 ............................................................................................................. 2.0-8
Well Location 12 ........................................................................................................................ 2.0-9
001-002-14
iii
June 2014
LIST OF TABLES
Table
5.3-1
5.3-2
5.7-1
5.12-1
5.12-2
Page
Worst-Case Unmitigated Construction Daily Emissions .......................................................... 5.0-11
Maximum Operational Emissions ............................................................................................ 5.0-11
Operational Unmitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................. 5.0-30
Existing Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 5.0-47
Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................. 5.0-48
001-002-14
iv
June 2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AB
Assembly Bill
AQMP
air quality management plan
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBC
California Building Code
CCWA
Central Coast Water Authority
CDFW
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CESA
California Endangered Species Act
CMP
Construction Management Program
CNPS
California Native Plant Society
CO
carbon monoxide
CUP
conditional use permit
DHS
Department of Health Services
DPH
Department of Public Health
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
GHG
greenhouse gas
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
ID
Improvement District
IS
Initial Study
LUST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MLD
Most Likely Descendant
MND
Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ
mineral resource zone
NCCP
Natural Community Conservation Plan
ND
Negative Declaration
NOx
nitrogen oxide
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
001-002-14
v
June 2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)
PM10
particulate matter less than 10 microns
PM2.5
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
PRC
Public Resources Code
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
ROG
reactive organic gas
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SBCAPCD
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
SBCFD
Santa Barbara County Fire Department
SBCPHD
Santa Barbara County Public Health Department
SBRCS
Santa Barbara County Regional Conservation Strategy
SCADA
supervisory control and data acquisition system
SFBAAB
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SOx
sulfur oxide
SR
State Route
SWP
State Water Project
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VHFHSZ
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
001-002-14
vi
June 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
OVERVIEW
The City of Solvang (City) prepared this Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the Upland Wells Project (Project).
The City has developed a well siting study for possible “upland” well sites to increase local water
supplies to the City. Five upland well sites have been selected for study and for drilling, testing, and
ultimately as future wells that would provide the City potable water supplies to meet water demand.
1.2
AUTHORITY
As part of the City’s approval process, the Project is required to undergo an environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The preparation of an IS/MND is governed by CEQA 1 and, more specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines, 2
which guide the process for the preparation of a negative declaration (ND) or MND. Where appropriate
and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference will be made to the statute, the State CEQA
Guidelines, or the appropriate case law.
This IS/MND, as required by CEQA, contains a project description, a description of the environmental
setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, consistency
with plans and policies, and names of preparers.
1.3
ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
The content and format of this Initial Study are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The
IS/MND consists of the proposed findings that the project, as mitigated, would have no significant
impacts. The IS/MND contains the following sections and supporting studies:
•
Section 1, Introduction, identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND and the terminology used in
the report.
1
2
California Code of Regulations, sec. 15000, et seq., State CEQA Guidelines.
California Code of Regulations, sec. 15000, et seq.
001-002-14
1.0-1
June 2014
1.0 Introduction
•
Section 2, Project Description, identifies the location, background, and planning objectives of the
Project and describes the Project in detail.
•
Section 3, Environmental Setting, describes the existing conditions, surrounding land use, general
plan, and existing zoning in the Project area.
•
Section 4, Environmental Checklist, presents the checklist responses and evaluation for each
resource topic.
•
Section 5, Environmental Analysis, includes an analysis for each resource topic and identifies
potential impacts of implementing the Project. It also identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.
•
Section 6, References, identifies all printed references and individuals citied in this IS/MND.
•
Section 7, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared this report and their areas of
technical specialty.
•
Appendices present data supporting the analysis or contents of this IS/MND. These include:
-
Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data
-
Appendix B, Biological Resource Survey Report
-
Appendix C, Cultural Resource Report
-
Appendix D, Noise Measurement Data
1.4
PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT IS/MND
CEQA requires that the lead agency provide the public and agencies the opportunity to review and
comment on a Draft MND. As outlined by CEQA, the City is providing a 30-day period for review and
comment on the Draft IS/MND. Upon completion of the public and agency review period, the City, as
lead agency, will evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the
Draft IS/MND and prepare written responses. The City will include these comments and responses in a
Final MND along with any changes that will be reviewed and considered for adoption by the City
Council.
001-002-14
1.0-2
June 2014
1.0 Introduction
Interested individuals, organizations, responsible agencies, and other agencies can provide written
comments to:
City of Solvang
Planning and Community Development
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Contact: Arleen Pelster, AICP, Planning & Economic Development Director
Comments may also be sent by facsimile to (805) 688-5575 or by email at [email protected].
Please put “Upland Wells Project” in the subject line. Agency responses should include the name of a
contact person within the commenting agency.
The Draft IS/MND is available for review at the following locations:
City of Solvang
Planning Department
411 Second Street
Solvang, California 93463
Santa Barbara County Library – Solvang Branch
1745 Mission Drive
Solvang, California 93463
In addition, the Draft IS/MND is available on the City’s website at:
http://www.cityofsolvang.com/index.php/departments/planning/planning-documents
001-002-14
1.0-3
June 2014
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
OVERVIEW
The City of Solvang (City) has developed a well siting study for possible “upland” well sites to increase
local water supplies to the City. Five upland well sites have been selected for study, drilling, and testing;
three of which are to be future wells that would provide the City with potable water supplies to meet
water demand.
Construction of the Project would entail the drilling of the five well sites; each site would be
approximately 2,500 square feet in size. It is anticipated that only three of the future well sites would be
fully developed and connected to the City’s potable water system.
The anticipated minimum yield for each well location is 150 gallons per minute (gpm) with a maximum
yield of 400 gpm. The total number of wells to be drilled and placed into service as part of the City’s
water supply will depend on the individual yield achieved for each well. The City is looking to obtain a
total yield for the proposed wells of 500 to 600 gpm to meet potable demand needs.
2.2
PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Solvang is situated within a tri-county regional area encompassing the counties of San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. As illustrated in Figure 2.0-1, Regional Location, the City is located
approximately midway between the City of Santa Maria and the City of Santa Barbara. As illustrated in
Figure 2.0-2, Site Vicinity, the City is located almost equidistant between the communities of Buellton
and Santa Ynez. State Route (SR) 246 bisects the City and provides a key regional east-west link between
US Highway 101 and SR 154.
2.3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project intends to increase local water supplies to the City through the development of up
to three upland well sites from five potential well sites. Construction of the Project would entail
sequential drilling at the five potential well sites to determine the potential well yield at each site.
Ultimately, the completed wells would be connected to the City’s potable water system, treated, and
distributed for use by the City.
The anticipated minimum yield for each well location is 150 gpm with a maximum yield of 400 gpm. The
total number of wells to be drilled and placed into service as part of the City’s water supply will depend
on the individual yield achieved for each well. The City is looking to obtain a total combined yield for the
proposed wells of 500 to 600 gpm to meet the potable demand needs.
001-002-14
2.0-1
June 2014
2.0 Project Description
Well Locations and Descriptions
The City of Solvang is located in a portion of the Santa Ynez Valley between two larger groundwater
basins and is underlain mainly by non- or low-water bearing bedrock strata at the surface or in the
shallow subsurface. The Santa Ynez Uplands Groundwater Basin is located north and northeast of an
unnamed northern fault as shown on Figure 2.0-3, Water Well Siting Map. Groundwater within this
basin is produced mainly from the Paso Robles Formation. The northern portions of the City overlie the
southern and southwestern edge of this basin. The Buellton Uplands Groundwater Basin is located
mainly to the west of Solvang, although a small shallow section of the basin may be found in the
subsurface near the southwestern portions of Adobe Creek. This basin produces groundwater mainly
from both the Paso Robles Formation and the Careaga Formation.
The City completed a study in March 2014 to determine potential well locations. The study, Hydrologic
Investigation and Preliminary Well Siting Technical Memorandum, 3 identified 12 potential sites for
future wells. Each of the 12 potential well drilling areas were assessed in terms of their hydrologic
potential, possible well yield and water quality issues, and general constraints in terms of accessibility
and required septic system setback. The well sites were prioritized in terms of having the highest
potential for success based on both expected hydrologic conditions and general logistical
considerations, and five of the 12 sites have been selected for testing and evaluation. These include well
sites 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12; all are located in alluvial materials along the Adobe Creek (Nos. 3, 11, and 12)
and Alamo Pintado Creek (No. 2) drainages, or older alluvium (No. 10).
The Project includes four well sites located within the City boundary and one located in an
unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County. Figure 2.0-4, Proposed Well Site Locations, identifies
the location of the five potential well sites. The location of each well site and their immediate
surroundings are shown on Figure 2.0-5, Well Locations 3 and 11, Figure 2.0-6, Well Locations 2 and 10,
and Figure 2.0-7, Well Location 12. The proposed wells would be located approximately 500 feet from
any active well.
The City is proposing up to three small wells because: (1) each site has not yet been determined as to
the quantity and yield of the well; (2) State water and the water provided from the Santa Ynez river
wells becomes less reliable during a multiple-year drought; and (3) the multiple wells provide flexibility
to avoid purchasing State Water Project (SWP) water from the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) or
3
Rick Hoffman and Associates, Hydrologic Investigation and Preliminary Well Siting Technical Memorandum, City of Solvang
Water Well Development Project, 12 Select Sites, Solvang, California. March 5, 2014.
001-002-14
2.0-2
June 2014
0
N
3.75
7.5
15
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE
2.0-1
Regional Location Map
001-002-14
N
SOURCE: City of Solvang General Plan Land Use Element - June 2008
FIGURE
2.0-2
Site Vicinity
001-002-14
0
N
SOURCE: Rick Hoffman and Associates – 2014; Dibblee - 1988
1000
2000
4000
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
2.0-3
City of Solvang - Existing & Proposed Well Locations
001-002-14
12
3
10
11
Legend
Proposed Pipeline Routes
Well Site
0
N
500
1000
2000
2
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2014; Meridian Consultants, LLC - 2014
FIGURE
2.0-4
Proposed Well Site Locations
001-002-14
3
k
ar
s
er
s
an
ian
Ch
t
ris
d
An
P
on
H
11
Legend
Well Site
0
N
125
250
500
FIGURE
2.0-5
Well Locations 3 and 11
001-002-14
10
Legend
Well Site
0
N
225
450
900
2
FIGURE
2.0-6
Well Locations 2 and 10
001-002-14
12
Legend
Well Site
0
N
175
350
700
FIGURE
2.0-7
Well Location 12
001-002-14
supplemental water from Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District Number 1
(ID No. 1).
It is anticipated that the wells would be drilled one at a time, tested to determine the yield, and then
determined if subsequent wells would be required. The order that the wells would be drilled is
anticipated to be Well Location 11, Well Location 2, Well Location 10, Well Location 3, and then Well
Location 12.
Well Location 2
Well Location 2 is located on City owned property known as Lot 72east of Alisal Mesa Road, as shown in
Figure 2.0-6. Power would be provided via an overhead power line. Groundwater would be discharged
to the land adjacent to the proposed well site. One of two potential pipeline routes would connect the
well to the City’s potable water system with an 8-inch diameter line, as shown in Figure 2.0-4 and Figure
2.0-6. A 10-by-15-foot chain link enclosure, about six feet high, would be constructed around the well
head.
As shown in Figure 2.0-6, Well Location 2 is located on a flat field approximately 175 feet east of Alisal
Mesa Road near the eastern edge of the City. The Santa Ynez Mission is located approximately 800 feet
to the northwest. Native habitat adjacent to this site consists of annual agricultural grassland, willow
scrub, chaparral, and oak woodland. Plants observed within the area include black elderberry, coast live
oak, California sagebrush, coyote brush, English walnut, red willow, and white alder. Observed bird
species include the Acorn woodpecker, spotted towhee, Anna’s hummingbird, western scrub-jay, and
bushtit. A tributary to the Santa Ynez River is located approximately 385 feet to the east of the well site.
The site is designated as Low Density Residential. The nearest sensitive use is a residential dwelling unit
located approximately 375 feet to the south.
Well Location 3
Well Location 3 is located within the northern portion of Hans Christian Anderson Park north of the
detention basin and approximately 330 feet south of existing tennis courts, as shown in Figure 2.0-5.
Power would be provided via an overhead power line. Groundwater would be discharged to the land
adjacent to the proposed well site. An 8-inch pipeline would connect the well to the City’s water system
adjacent to the proposed site. A 10- by 15-foot chain link enclosure, about six feet high, would be
constructed around the well head.
001-002-14
2.0-10
June 2014
Currently, the site is relatively flat and surrounded by fields, skyline trees, grassland, and chaparral on
undeveloped hillsides. The well location is situated within coast live oak woodland and is adjacent to a
large, open disturbed area. Single-family residences are located approximately 290 feet to the northeast
of the site. A tributary of the Santa Ynez River is located approximately 150 feet to the west of the site.
The site is designated as Open Space/Recreation. Sensitive uses are located approximately 290 feet east
of Well Site No. 3 and include residential units and hotel uses.
Well Location 10
Well Location 10 is located in the heart of the City within the parking lot of the Veteran Memorial
Building, as shown in Figure 2.0-6. Power would be provided via an overhead power line. Groundwater
would be discharged to the land adjacent to the proposed well site. An 8-inch diameter pipeline would
connect the well to the City’s water system to the east. A 10- by 15-foot chain link enclosure, about six
feet high, would be constructed around the well head.
The well site is located along the south side of Maple Avenue and is bordered by a parking lot to the
south and apartment complexes to the north and west. The surrounding area is completely developed
and is dominated by ornamental and ruderal species but contains native oak and pine trees within the
vicinity of the site. Birds species observed include acorn woodpecker, western scrub-jay, band-tailed
pigeon, black-chinned hummingbirds, hooded oriole, and northern mockingbird. No drainages are
located within the vicinity of the well site.
The well location is designated as Public/Institutional. This land use designation includes schools,
churches, a civic center, hospitals, other public uses, and mixed uses. Sensitive uses are located
approximately 130 feet to the northeast of the well location, and include multifamily residential units.
Well Location 11
Well Location 11 is located within the southern portion of Hans Christian Anderson Park south of the
detention basin, as shown in Figure 2.0-5. Power would be provided via an overhead power line.
Groundwater would be discharged to the land adjacent to the proposed well site. An 8-inch diameter
pipeline would connect the well to the City’s water system to the west, as shown in Figure 2.0-4 and
Figure 2.0-5. A 10- by 15-foot chain link enclosure, about six feet high, will be constructed around the
well head.
The well site is located approximately 400 feet north of Mission Drive. Currently, the well location is
undeveloped and ungraded. The site is primarily surrounded by coast live oak woodland and annual
grassland. Other plants observed within the area include white alder, red willow, Fremont cottonwood,
001-002-14
2.0-11
June 2014
poison oak, ripgut brome, California blackberry, California sycamore, black mustard, and California wild
rose. Observed bird species include the Acorn woodpecker, spotted towhee bushtit, black-throated gray
warbler, wilson’s warbler, and oak titmouse. Other wildlife observed include coast range fence lizard,
California ground squirrel, and dusky-footed woodrat. A tributary to the Santa Ynez River is located
approximately 125 feet to the east of the site.
Well Location 11 is located within an Open Space/Recreation land use designation. Open
Space/Recreation includes public parks, golf course, indoor recreation facilities, open space uses, and
has no defined maximum density. However, any structures constructed within this designation are
considered integral components of the recreational uses and should be at a scale that is compatible with
the recreational site. Nearby sensitive uses include single-family residences in the Skytt Mesa
neighborhood located approximately 325 feet northwest of Well Location 11. The well site is
approximately 70 feet below the line of sight of the neighborhood.
Well Location 12
Well Location 12 is located in an open area within an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County
adjacent to the west and east of existing residences, as shown in Figure 2.0-7. An 8-inch diameter
pipeline would connect the well to the City’s water system to the east below ground at Ringsted Drive.
Power would be provided via an overhead power line. Groundwater would be discharged to the land
adjacent to the proposed well site. The well would be housed within a small structure to reduce sound
and minimize the aesthetic nature of the well operation. The dimensions of the well building would be
approximately 8 feet by 8 feet with a height of approximately 8 feet. The building would be designed
with architecture and color scheme to match the existing residential neighborhood to the east. The
building would be a conventional concrete slab on grade structure that would be cut into the side of a
small slope to reduce its visibility. The building would have security lights at the entrance doors.
This well location is west of the eastern terminus of Ringsted Drive with residences located
approximately 175 feet to the east. Vegetation in the area consists of annual grassland and mulefat
scrub. Bird species observed include the Acorn woodpecker, spotted towhee, American crow, yellowbilled magpie, and western scrub-jay. A small un-named creek, tributary to Adobe Creek, is located
approximately 60 feet to the west of the site.
001-002-14
2.0-12
June 2014
The well location is in an area designated as agriculture use within the County of Santa Barbara. 4 The
closest land use designation is Low Density Residential to the east of the site. As mentioned previously,
nearby sensitive uses include a residential community. The elevation of the well site is approximately 15
feet below the line of sight of these residences.
Project Development and Construction
The proposed Project includes two phases for well development.
The first phase includes the drilling, testing, and discharge of groundwater at five separate well sites to
determine the viability of future well locations for City use. Test wells would be drilled one at a time to
determine potential water yield and long-term viability, provided the well bore penetrates sections of
water-bearing coarse sand. The size of the test hole would be 9 inches in diameter with the casing up to
12 inches in diameter. If it is determined the well would provide less than 150 gpm, the test hole would
be filled, and then the drill rig would move to the next well location. If the test determines that the well
location would provide a minimum of 150 gpm, then a permanent well would be installed at that
location. Depending upon the results of the final well yield, it is anticipated that three well locations
would be constructed to produce a combined output of 500 to 600 gpm as a source of long-term water
supply for the City. However, all five well locations may be drilled and tested.
The second phase of well development would be the permanent installation and operation of pumps,
wellhead piping, waterlines, and associated infrastructure upon selection of well sites.
Well Drilling and Development
Drilling would require access for a drilling rig, a pipe truck, a water truck, and support vehicles. Access to
the new wells would be provided by existing roadways and dirt roads. Borehole depths for the proposed
wells would likely not exceed 600 feet below ground surface and the proposed diameters would be 9
inches for the test hole and up to 12 inches for the well casing. The proposed wells would be
constructed in the Older Alluvium, Paso Robles Formation, and/or the Careaga Formation.
The typical area for a well is 100 feet by 50 feet area; however, the environmental impact analysis will
provide conclusions for a 250 foot by 250 foot area. At each well site, a 5,000-square-foot area (about
100 by 50 feet) would be cleared and graded to a flat surface. The well would be installed within this
4
Santa Barbara County, Planning and Development, General Zoning,
sbcountyplanning.org/pdf/permitting/zoning/findmyzone/zoning-C4.pdf
001-002-14
2.0-13
June 2014
area, which would also be used for the drilling rig, stockpiling, and other equipment parking. It may be
necessary for construction trucks to also temporarily park along the existing dirt roads at each well site.
First a 9-inch diameter test hole would be drilled to full depth (500 to 600 feet) and a lithographic log
would be taken down the test hole. The cuttings from the test hole and the lithographic log will
determine if the well will produce adequate flow of water. If the test hole would not produce adequate
flow of water, it will be backfilled and abandoned.
The drilling process would produce cuttings of native clay, silt, sand, and gravel that would be
discharged using drilling fluids (mud) and contained in on-site excavated pits, except where noted
specifically in each well site below.
Subsequently a 22-inch diameter borehole would be drilled to a depth of approximately 550 feet and
would generate approximately 35 cubic feet of native material (1.3 cubic yards). During this phase of
drilling, the cuttings and groundwater produced from the hole(s) will be discharged into a containment
area created by excavating an area 10 by 10 feet to a depth of about 24 inches, and surrounding the
area with hay bales as necessary to ensure that discharged water does not enter nearby drainages. The
water would soak into the ground and the sediment would be contained. No cuttings or fluids would be
permitted to flow into an adjacent stream. After reaching the final depth, the well screen, casing
materials, and gravel pack would be installed.
Upon drilling completion of each site, a 12- to 24-inch-high well pad, measuring about 25 by 25 feet,
would be constructed at each selected site. The well pad would be constructed of native material at the
site, including the suitable drilling cuttings. The well head would consist of several pipes. The well pump
and motor would be submersible, and therefore would not be visible.
Upon completion of the well pad and well head, each well would be developed by means of swabbing,
bailing, air-lifting, and pumping and surging. These actions produce water from the well and facilitate
the removal of fine-grained materials that can inhibit well production. The resulting fluids would be
discharged to open areas adjacent to the well location and allowed to percolate. Up to 20,000 gallons of
groundwater would be produced from each well during well development.
Well Testing
After well development is complete, each well would be subject to both step drawdown and constant
discharge pump testing, which would occur on a 12-hour basis. Either pump test would run for a period
between 4 to 12 hours, depending on the results of the initial test. The Santa Barbara County Test Pump
Ordinance allows for the running of a 12-hour constant discharge test for well yields in excess of 50
001-002-14
2.0-14
June 2014
gpm. If the well produces less than 50 gpm, the test has to be run for 24 hours. The County also allows
for shorter duration tests for high-yield wells (greater than 50 gpm) whereby a California Certified
Hydrogeologist would be allowed to oversee the running of a 4-hour test. It is estimated that well
testing would occur for 1 to 2 days for each well at up to 500 gpm.
Power lines are located in close proximity to each of the well locations and would provide power to each
well. Pumped groundwater would be discharged to open areas adjacent to each well site, or a sanitary
sewer line, in such a manner as to avoid erosion and discharge into a creek or stream. The testing and
construction of any of the proposed well locations would result in minimal amounts of soil stockpiling
and would provide best management practices (BMPs), such as the placement of hay bales, to control
the direction of discharge of extracted groundwater.
Well Completion and Operation
After well completion, at a minimum, well head protection would consist of a concrete sanitary seal
placed in the upper 50 feet of the well annulus between the well casing and the conductor casing,
adding additional mass and well head protection. The well screen section would be encased with clean
imported gravel that is placed in the annulus below the sanitary seal. The screen slot size would likely be
in the range of a 0.060- to 0.090-inch opening and based on formation materials observed. The gravel
gradation would be selected according to the final screen slot size. Depending upon site conditions, a
24-inch diameter steel conductor casing may be installed to a depth of 20 feet and concreted in place.
The conductor casing may be installed prior to test-hole drilling.
The three new wells would be incorporated into the City’s supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) system and operate from set points tied to reservoir levels. System production would be
dictated by demand on the system. 5 The combined total production rate from the new wells would
need to be at least 500 gpm to achieve shortfall in water supply for the residents and businesses of the
City.
The well pumps would be designed to lift the water to a storage reservoir. The design considers the total
lift or dynamic head which is the sum of: 1) the elevation difference between the pumping water level
and Zone 1 or Zone 2 reservoirs and 2) the head loss due to friction along the length of the distribution
pipeline. Electricity to power the pumps will be provided by an electrical distribution line leading to each
5
Correspondence with Mr. Matt Van Der Laden, City of Solvang Public Works Director, April 9, 2014.
001-002-14
2.0-15
June 2014
pump during operation. There will be one transformer to serve each pump, plus the additional
distribution lines to connect the well pumps to the nearest power source.
Pipelines and Connection of Wells to City Distribution System
Upon completion of the well head, and prior to operations, the distribution pipelines would need to be
installed to connect the wells to the City’s distribution system. Pipelines would consist of 6-inch- or 8inch diameter PVC pipes that would be buried at least 36 inches below ground surface. The pipelines
would be installed with an excavator that would excavate a 12-inch-wide trench and temporarily store
the removed soils along the trench. Work crews would place the pipe in the trench, which would be
backfilled by a loader or backhoe, and then compacted to match existing grade. The temporary
disturbance zone associated with pipe installation would be about 15 feet wide. Electrical conduits
would be installed to deliver power to each well.
Where pipelines would be installed beneath paved roads, the asphalt surface would be saw cut, and an
excavator would be used to excavate a trench for the pipe. The road would be restored to
preconstruction conditions after installing the pipe and backfilling the trench.
Installing the pipes in a trench would require the clearing of vegetation. No trees are anticipated to be
removed. After installing the pipes, the slopes may require slope stabilization by erosion control mats,
geo-webbing, and plants.
Project Schedule
Construction and testing of each well site would occur over several weeks. Construction of the Project is
expected to begin in late 2014 and would be completed within approximately 3 months.
Well drilling, completion, development, and testing would require about seven days at each well site.
Work would likely be coordinated so that one well is being drilled while another is being developed and
pump tested. Pump testing would occur immediately after well installation. The water lines and
electrical conduits would be installed after well testing. The proposed well installation would be
completed in a phased approach.
Testing of the well drilling would occur between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The step-drawdown test would
occur in four steps, each lasting one hour. The constant discharge test would run between 4 to 12 hours
depending on the results of the initial test. Equipment used during the drilling operations would include
a drill rig, backhoe, grader, and a truck. Pipeline installation operations would include an excavator and a
dump truck. Operation-related trips would generate up to 12 additional vehicle trips per week for the
proposed future wells and pipeline infrastructure.
001-002-14
2.0-16
June 2014
2.4
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY REQUIRED APPROVALS
The following approvals and actions are required:
•
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
•
California Department of Public Health – permit for new wells for municipal supply
•
County of Santa Barbara Department of Environmental Health Services – well construction permit
(for a well outside the City limits)
•
Regional Water Quality Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for temporary well testing discharges
•
Temporary Construction Easement from the private owner west of Well Location No. 12
001-002-14
2.0-17
June 2014
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Solvang (City) is located in the Santa Ynez Valley in the central part of Santa Barbara County.
Solvang is surrounded by the Purisima Hills to the north, the upper Santa Ynez Valley to the east, the
Santa Ynez Mountains to the south, and the lower Santa Ynez Valley to the west. Solvang is situated
primarily along an alluvial plain formed by the Santa Ynez River and on the southeastern edge of the
Purisima Hills. It is located almost equidistant between the communities of Buellton and Santa Ynez.
SR 246 bisects Solvang and provides a key regional east-west link between US Highway 101 and SR 154.
An estimated 20,000 people live in the Santa Ynez Valley of which 23 percent reside in the City.
According to the California Department of Finance, at the beginning of 2014 population and housing
estimates indicated there were 5,363 people residing in the City. The majority of the City’s land is used
for housing their residents and the bulk of the City’s residential land is designated as Low Density and
Medium Density Land Uses by the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. There were 2,522 dwelling units as
of 2013.6 The estimated population at buildout is 6,286 people.
3.2
CURRENT CITY WATER SYSTEM
The City’s Water Division provides water to users within the service area for residential, commercial,
industrial, and landscape irrigation purposes. The City maintains and operates a small municipal system
with various supply wells, storage, treatment, pumping and distribution facilities. An overview of the
City’s water supply, demand, and distribution system is provided.
The City of Solvang currently has an annual water demand of approximately 1,550 acre-feet per year
(afy). Typically, approximately 1,000 afy of this total demand is provided by direct deliveries from the
Coastal Branch of the SWP, through the CCWA. For the past few years, the remainder of the total water
demand has been met by pumping from City well systems (River Wells and Upland Wells); the
remainder of the City water supply is provided from the ID No. 1, via two large interconnect meters.
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1
The City purchases water from ID No. 1 on an as-needed basis. Water is provided by direct connections
in Zones 1 and 2 of the City’s water system. The Zone 1 connection is located on Old Mill Road and has a
6
California Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates with 2010 Benchmark,
1/1/2014, released May 1, 2014.
001-002-14
3.0-1
June 2014
3.0 Environmental Setting
source capacity of 1,200 gpm (or 2.67 cubic feet per second [cfs]). The Zone 2 interconnection is located
at the crossing of Ladan Drive and Alamo Pintado Road and has a source capacity of 2,000 gpm (or 4.44
cfs). The delivered water represents a mixture of SWP water purchased by ID No. 1 from its own SWP
entitlement or obtained in exchange for ID No. 1 Cachuma Project entitlements, and water from ID No. 1
wells that extract water from the Santa Ynez Upland Groundwater Basin and Santa Ynez River
underflow.
ID No. 1 has two well fields along the Santa Ynez River: the 4.0 cfs and 6.0 cfs well fields. The former is
located approximately 2 miles upstream of the Refugio Bridge, while the latter is located 1 mile
upstream of the Alisal Bridge. In addition, ID No. 1 produces water from its Upland wells. ID No. 1
chlorinates, but does not filter, the delivered water. Hence, river water production by ID No. 1 is subject
to curtailment due to California Department of Public Health (DPH) regulations if surface water in the
river channel is located within 150 feet of the wells. The annual amount of water the City purchases
from ID No. 1 has varied greatly from a maximum of 1,055 acre-feet in 1993 to as little as 10 acre-feet in
2003.
State Water Project (SWP) Water
SWP water deliveries through the Coastal Branch Aqueduct to Santa Ynez Valley began in 1997 and is
delivered directly to the City from the CCWA through a 12-inch connection with a capacity of 1,300 gpm
(2.89 cfs). SWP water is filtered and disinfected at the CCWA Polonio Pass water treatment plant in San
Luis Obispo County. Delivery of SWP water is subject to climatic factors in Northern California, which
may reduce runoff into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and to environmental regulations that curtail
pumping from the Delta.
The City holds entitlement to 1,500 afy of SWP water via an agreement with ID No. 1; ID No. 1 has an
additional 500 afy of SWP Table A Allocation that is delivered through CCWA. The City began receiving
SWP water deliveries in August 2002. According to the 2009 SWP Reliability Report, the long-term
average reliability of SWP water deliveries is expected to be about 60 percent of the City’s allocation, or
about 900 afy. The City further discounts SWP water reliability by another 20 percent of the City’s
allocation of 1,500 afy (to 600 afy) to plan for the single dry year and multiple dry years scenarios.
Upland Wells
The City drilled two wells in the Santa Ynez Uplands Groundwater Basin, Wells 21 and 22, to determine if
the quality is acceptable for municipal use. Well 21 is located outside the City limits atop a hill just east
of Chalk Hill Road on the site of Reservoir 2; this well has a current capacity of 115 gpm. The 1996 Water
System Master Plan noted that this well has problems complying with the Department of Health
001-002-14
3.0-2
June 2014
3.0 Environmental Setting
Services (DHS) Secondary Treatment Standards for iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and hydrogen sulfide
(H2S). Although none of the concentrations exceed a mandatory or public health standard, the presence
of these minerals in the water could cause customer complaints on occasion. This well is also equipped
with a chlorine-dosing system. This well had been inactive due to those water quality concerns but was
recently placed in service due to the current drought conditions. Well 22 is located in the Creekside
Subdivision on the east side of town. It was never equipped or used as a producing well due to high
levels of H2S experienced during well development.
The City does utilize one well, Well 4, located near City Hall. Well 4 was drilled in 1953 to a depth of 146
feet with perforations that begin at 100 feet. This well produces about 320 gpm and is chlorinated at the
well head. The well has good water quality; however, due to its age it requires ongoing repairs and
upgrades. Historically, Well 4 provided a peak annual production of 380 afy but production has declined
over time. The anticipated long-term average production is approximately 100 afy.
River Wells
The City currently has two active river wells (Wells 3 and 7A) and one inactive river well (Well 5), located
along the Santa Ynez River channel. Under State law, drinking water produced from wells within 150
feet of surface water is considered "under the influence of surface water." Therefore, water produced
by wells under the influence of surface water must be filtered subject to the same rules applicable to
surface water. Solvang does not currently have the filtration equipment to treat surface water (or water
under the influence of surface water). During periods of heavy rain, the water in the river can rise to
levels within 50 feet of either well. The river also periodically changes course due to rain and releases
from Bradbury Dam. Well production is curtailed whenever surface water is within 150 feet of a well.
001-002-14
3.0-3
June 2014
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Land Use Planning
Population/Housing
Agriculture and Forestry
Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
is eligible for a Categorical Exemption.
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature
001-002-14
Date
4.0-1
June 2014
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an evaluation of the various topics considered for environmental review.
A brief explanation for the determination of significance is provided for all impact determinations except
“No Impact” determinations that are adequately supported by the information sources the Lead Agency
(City of Solvang) cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” determination is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply
to the proposed project (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
determination includes an explanation of its bases relative to project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
Explanations take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
indicates whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
may be significant.
“Mitigated Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering of a program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
001-002-14
5.0-1
June 2014
5.0 Environmental Analysis
5.1
AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a.
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b.
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c.
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d.
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
a.
Less than Significant Impact.
Scenic vistas are typically views of features such as mountains, forests, the ocean, or urban skylines. The
City of Solvang is located within the Santa Ynez Valley, which is bordered between the Santa Ynez
Mountains to the south and the Purisima Hills to the north. Views of these resources are identified in
the City’s General Plan as a scenic view to its residents and visitors.
Each of the proposed well locations would have the potential for well development. Up to three sites
would be developed with a 12- to 24-inch-high well pad, measuring about 25 by 25 feet for the
wellhead. The well pad will be constructed of native material at the site, including the suitable drilling
cuttings, and consist of several pipes. The well pump will be submersible, and therefore will not be
visible. A 10-by-15-foot chain link enclosure, about six feet high, will be constructed around each well
head, except for Well Location No. 12 which would be enclosed within a small building.
Well Location No. 11 and No. 3 are located in the Hans Christian Anderson Park and each site is currently
undeveloped and ungraded. Both proposed well locations are approximately 70 feet lower in elevation
than the residential neighborhood to the northwest and northeast, and therefore, not within the line of
sight of the views of the surrounding mountains and skylines.
Well Location No. 2 is located in a historic park approximately 200 feet east of Alisal Mesa Road. The
well site will be 40 feet below the mesa to the west. A 10-by-15-foot chain link enclosure, about six feet
high, will be constructed around the well head. The existing vegetation around the proposed well site
001-002-14
5.0-2
June 2014
would provide a line-of-sight break from the residence to the south when looking towards the well
location. Therefore, views of the well location would not obscure views from the south towards the
surrounding ridgelines.
Well Location No. 10 is located in the heart of the City, on the southeast corner of Alisal Road and Maple
Avenue in the parking lot of the Veterans Memorial Building. The well site will be on the ground level of
the parking lot and at eye level with the public. Due to the location and elevation of the proposed well,
views of the City’s skyline would not be obscured by the public or residents to the north.
Well Location 12 is located in an open area within an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County
adjacent to the west and east of existing residences. The elevation of the proposed well location is
below the line of sight of residences to the east, but would remain visible from higher elevations to the
west. The proposed well would be housed within an 8-by-8-foot structure with a height of
approximately 8 feet. The building would be a conventional concrete slab on grade structure that would
be cut into the side of the small slope along the east to reduce its visibility. Security lights would be
shielded and directed downward at the entrance doors. The building would be designed with an
architectural and color scheme similar to the existing residential neighborhood to the east to minimize
the aesthetic nature of the structure. If this location is selected, the elevation of the structure would not
obscure the views of the surrounding ridgelines visible to the nearby residences.
Views of scenic vistas would remain similar to existing conditions. Additionally, the elevations of the
surrounding mountains would remain to provide a scenic backdrop to the City and its residents without
detriment from development of the proposed well locations. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b.
No Impact.
The nearest state highway is Highway 246 which bisects the City from east to west. The City’s Circulation
Element does not identify any Scenic Highway 7 within the City or near any of the proposed well
locations. The nearest state scenic highway to the City is SR 101 which is classified as an “Eligible Scenic
Highway-Not Officially Designated” scenic highway approximately 2.5 miles west of the City.
7
City of Solvang, General Plan, Circulation Element (2008).
001-002-14
5.0-3
June 2014
Development of the Project would not be visible from SR 101 and would not impact trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 8 No significant impacts to scenic
highways would occur.
c.
Drilling, well development, and testing activities would last up to 3 weeks at each well location, and as
such, would be temporary and short-term in nature.
Well Location No. 11 is located in the southern portion of Hans Christian Anderson Park and the site is
currently undeveloped and ungraded. Nearby sensitive uses include a single-family residence
neighborhood approximately 325 feet northwest. The well site would be 70 feet below this
neighborhood and therefore not within eye sight of the neighborhood. Well Location No. 3 is located in
the Hans Christian Anderson Park and the site is currently undeveloped and ungraded. Nearby sensitive
uses include residences approximately 300 feet east of the well site. Development of these well
locations would result in the removal of annual grassland which would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Well Location No. 2 is located in an open field with annual grassland and nearby oak trees. Development
of this well location would not result in the removal of significant visual resources such as the
surrounding oak woodland.
Well Location No. 10 is located in the heart of the City within an existing parking lot. Development of the
well would be visually compatible.
Well Location 12 is located within an open area adjacent to the west and east of existing residences. The
well would be housed within a small structure to minimize the aesthetic nature of the well operation.
The structure would consist of an architectural style and color scheme compatible with the surrounding
residences. Therefore, development of this well location would not substantially degrade the
surrounding visual character or quality of the area.
8
Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm
001-002-14
5.0-4
June 2014
All water lines which would ultimately connect the three well locations to the City’s potable water
distribution system would be located below ground and not visible. The alignment of the pipelines
would not result in significant removals of mature trees or sensitive vegetation. Therefore, pipeline
impacts would be less than significant.
Development of any of the proposed well locations would result in less-than-significant visual impacts
on the surrounding character of the area.
d.
Glare is generated during the day from reflective surfaces. Light pollution occurs when nighttime views
of the stars and sky are diminished by an over-abundance of light coming from the ground. Each well
location would cover an area approximately 5,000 square feet in size. The well pad would be
constructed of native materials at the site. No reflective surfaces would be created by development of
Well Location No. 11, No. 2, No. 3, or No. 10. Well Location No. 12 would be housed within a structure
with colors similar to the surrounding environment and would not be constructed with reflective
surfaces (i.e., non-reflective glass). Glare impacts would be less than significant if any of the five
proposed locations are selected for well development.
Nighttime lighting would be generated from power source lights or status dials at Well Location No. 11,
No. 2, No. 3, and No. 10. No significant sources of nighttime lighting would be generated at these
locations. Well Location No. 12 would contain security lighting at the entrance to the building. These
lights would be shielded and directed downward to minimize nighttime light pollution within the
surrounding area.
All water lines which connect ultimately connect the three well locations to the City’s potable water
distribution system would be located below ground and not visible. Therefore, pipeline impacts would
be less than significant.
Development of any of the proposed well locations would result in less-than-significant light or glare
impacts on the surrounding character of the area.
001-002-14
5.0-5
June 2014
5.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Would the project:
a.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c.
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d.
Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to nonforest use?
e.
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature could result in conversion of Farmland,
to nonagricultural use or conversion of
forestland to nonforest use?
Less Than
Significant
With
Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion
a.
No Impact.
The proposed well locations are not currently used for agricultural operations. According to the
California Department of Conservation “Santa Barbara Important Farmland 2010” map, the proposed
well locations are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” or as “Other Land.” 9 None of the proposed
well locations are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Local Importance. No impacts would occur.
9
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Santa Barbara Important Farmland 2010,
(January 2012).
001-002-14
5.0-6
June 2014
b.
Less than Significant.
As identified in Figure 2.0-2, Well Location No. 11, No. 3, No. 10, and No. 2 are not zoned for agricultural
use. However, Well Location No. 12 is zoned as Agricultural I (AG-I-5) according to the County of Santa
Barbara Zoning Map. 10 The AG-I-5 zone allows and permits the development of wells with the submittal
of a water well permit application to the Santa Barbara County Department of Public Health,
Environmental Health Services division. Well Location No. 12 would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use and impacts would be less than significant.
None of the proposed well locations or pipeline routes are subject to a Williamson Act contract. 11 No
impacts would occur.
c.
No Impact.
None of the proposed well locations are currently designated as, or located near land designated for,
forest, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. 12 The land uses surrounding Well
Location No. 11 and No. 3 include open space/recreational uses. Well Location No. 10 is within and
surrounded by public/institutional uses. Well Location No. 2 is within and surrounded by low-density
residential uses. Well Location No. 12 is within the Santa Barbara County designated agricultural zone
and adjacent to the west of residential uses within the City. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland
Production. 13 No impacts would occur.
10 County of Santa Barbara, Planning and Development Department, Santa Barbara County Map Catalog, Zoning Map C4,
2013.
11 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Santa Barbara County Williamson Act FY
2013/2014, (2013).
12 City of Solvang, General Plan, Land Use Element (2008).
001-002-14
5.0-7
June 2014
d.
No Impact.
As previously discussed, the proposed well locations are not located within a forest area. None of the
proposed well locations or pipeline routes would result in the loss of forestland or in the conversion of
forestland to nonforest use. 14 No impacts would occur.
e.
No Impact.
As previously noted, the well sites are not designated as either farmland or forestland and do not
involve farming or forestry operations. Furthermore, there are no agriculture or forestry operations in
the vicinity of the proposed well sites. Therefore, no such land would be converted and no impacts
would occur.
14 City of Solvang, General Plan, Land Use Element (2008).
001-002-14
5.0-8
June 2014
5.3
AIR QUALITY
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No
Significant
With Project
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Impact
AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b.
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e.
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion
a.
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) is the local agency that provides air
quality guidance with jurisdiction over the entire County. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan
applicable to the Project is the 2013 Clean Air Plan. 15 Regional growth projections are used by SBCAPCD
to forecast future emission levels in the air basin. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects
have the potential to affect the regional growth projections.
The Project would supplement current water supplies with the development of up to three new wells.
This water would not directly or indirectly induce population within the City because the wells would
supplement State water delivered through the CCWA, thereby reducing the City’s reliance on imported
water. Therefore, it would not conflict with the population projections identified within the SBCACPD Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Impacts would be less than significant.
15 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 2013 Clean Air Plan, January 2011.
001-002-14
5.0-9
June 2014
b.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Emissions
The well location sites are located in the SBCAPCD, which is designated as nonattainment for ozone,
PM10 under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). 16
The SBCAPCD Rule 202 D.16 states that if the combined emissions from all construction equipment used
to construct a stationary source that requires an Authority to Construct permit have the potential to
exceed 25 tons of any pollutant, except carbon monoxide (CO) in a 12-month period, the owner of the
stationary source shall provide offsets under the provisions of SBCAPCD Rule 804 (Emission Offsets) and
shall demonstrate that no ambient air quality standards will be violated.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to model Project emissions. The
maximum daily emissions during Project construction are presented in Table 5.3-1, Worst-Case
Unmitigated Construction Daily Emissions (tons/year). The analysis assumes that all construction
equipment, including a drill rig, backhoe, grader, and a dump truck, would occur continuously over each
day and that activities would occur over 6 to 8 weeks. In reality, this would not occur as most equipment
would operate only a fraction of each workday and many of the activities would not overlap on a daily
basis, and therefore, represents a conservative scenario for construction activities. As identified in Table
5.3-1, construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the SBCAPCD maximum daily emissions
thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.
16 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Standards and Area Designation, www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
001-002-14
5.0-10
June 2014
Table 5.3-1
Worst-Case Unmitigated Construction Daily Emissions (tons/year)
Year
ROG
NOx
CO*
SOx
PM10
PM2.5
0.06
0.52
0.33
0.00059
0.04
0.03
SBCAPCD
Threshold
25
25
-
25
25
25
Exceeds
Threshold?
No
No
-
No
No
No
2014
Air Emissions Model Results are presented in Appendix A.
Note:
* The SBCAPCD does not have a threshold for CO.
Abbreviations: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx,= nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter
less than 2.5 microns; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of normal
day-to-day activities at each of the three well locations after construction. Mobile emissions would be
generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the well locations for routine maintenance activities.
The analysis of daily operational emissions has been prepared using the data, methodologies, and
current motor vehicle emission factors in the CalEEMod model. A total of 12 vehicle trips were assumed
to be generated each week during operation of the Project. Table 5.3-2, Maximum Operational
Emissions, provides the maximum daily operational emissions. As indicated in Table 5.3-2, the Project
would not exceed the SBCAPCD operational thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5.3-2
Maximum Operational Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG
NOx
CO*
SOx
PM10
PM2.5
Maximum
Source
0.31
0.82
3.21
0.0052
0.33
0.10
SBCAPCD Threshold
240
240
-
-
80
-
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
-
-
No
-
Air Emissions Model Results are presented in Appendix A.
Note:
* The SBCAPCD does not have a threshold for CO.
Abbreviations: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx,= nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter
less than 2.5 microns; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides.
001-002-14
5.0-11
June 2014
c.
The SBCAPCD is in nonattainment for ozone and PM10. Projects that do not exceed the project-level
threshold would not contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts. As shown in Table 5.3-1,
all emissions associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the SBCAPCD-recommended
thresholds and would, therefore, not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant. SBCAPCD Rule 202.D.7 states that a permit is not required for any new stationary source if the
uncontrolled actual emissions of each individual affected pollutant from the entire stationary source are
below 1.00 ton per calendar year. As indicated in Table 5.3-2, none of the criteria air pollutants exceed
1.00 ton of emissions within a calendar year. Furthermore, the Project would not emit air contaminants
(lead, asbestos, vinyl chloride, etc.) in excess of the thresholds defined in SBCAPCD Rule 202.D.10. The
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone or PM10. Impacts would
be less than significant.
d.
Sensitive receptors are defined as schools, residential homes, hospitals, resident care facilities, daycare
centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely
impacted by changes in air quality.
Well Location No. 10 is the closest sensitive receptor and is approximately 130 feet south of multi-family
residential units. Drilling, well development, testing,
and operation of this well would not emit
substantial amounts of any criteria pollutants as indicated in Tables 5.3-1 and Table 5.3-2. As the other
wells are further away from sensitive receptors than those at Well No. 10, the potential for adverse
impacts would be less at these other locations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
f.
Less Than Significant.
According to the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, 17 odors are the
most common sources of air pollution complaints and as with other types of air pollution, a number of
17 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective, 2005.
001-002-14
5.0-12
June 2014
factors need to be considered when determining potential effects on land use. Land uses that are more
likely to produce odors include agriculture, chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass
molding, landfills, refineries, rendering plants, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants.
Well drilling, well development, and testing activities associated with the proposed Project would
generate odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust including diesel and gasoline. Odors associated
with diesel and gasoline fumes are transitory in nature and would not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people. The impacts from these odors would be short term and would
cease upon the completion of each selected well location. Impacts would be less than significant.
001-002-14
5.0-13
June 2014
5.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a.
Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d.
Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
a.
Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Special-status species include those listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), species otherwise given certain
designations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and plant species listed as rare
by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
A biological assessment at each well location and along each proposed pipeline route was conducted by
BioResource Consultants, Inc. (BRC) to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive biological
resources. No special-status plants or animal species were observed during the survey of each well
001-002-14
5.0-14
June 2014
location; however, potential habitat for sensitive species was identified in the area of the five well
locations. Due to the lack of rainfall during the winter and spring, the likelihood of sensitive plants
occurring within each of the five potential well locations is low.
Potentially suitable habitat exists within the well and pipeline survey areas for several special-status
wildlife species including California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), two-striped gartersnake
(Thamnophis hammondii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii),
ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and American badger (Taxidea taxus).
Potentially suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs exists along Adobe Creek near Well Locations
No. 3 and No. 11 (within the 250 foot by 250 foot survey area). Two occurrences of California red-legged
frog have been documented within 1.3 and 2.5 miles of Well Location No. 11. The locations of the
California red-legged frog occurrences are hydrologically connected to Adobe Creek, and are within the
2-mile dispersal range of red-legged frogs. Adobe Creek is located near Well Locations No. 3 and No. 11;
however, at the time of the survey only a few small pools of standing water remained in Adobe Creek. A
retention basin is located in the upland area 360 feet north of Well Location No. 11 and 725 feet south
of Well Location No. 3. Tadpoles of Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca)
and California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus), species commonly found in the same aquatic habitat
as California red-legged frogs, were observed within the retention basin. The presence of these species
indicates that the retention basin offers potentially suitable habitat that could be utilized by California
red-legged frogs for breeding, or for cover when Adobe Creek is dry. The likely well site locations for
Wells No. 3 and No. 11 would be located upslope east and west of Adobe Creek within upland open
grassy areas. These sites have little or no suitable aquatic breeding habitat, but do include suitable
upland dispersal habitat with grassy areas; as such, based on CDFW guidance documentation, the
potential exists for the presence of California red-legged frog to occur. However, because the creek and
the surrounding riparian area is largely dry, and the well locations are located in upslope areas away
from the creek, the potential for California red-legged frog to occur at either of the well locations is
considered extremely low and unlikely. Because of the close proximity of these two well locations to
Adobe Creek (within a couple of hundred feet), drilling, well development, and testing activities could
potentially impact areas adjacent to the creek that include suitable habitat for California red-legged
frog. Therefore, if the California red-legged was present, impacts would be potentially significant.
Western pond turtle and the two-striped garter snake have been documented to occur within 2 miles
south of the proposed well locations in Quiota Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ynez River. Adobe Creek
lacks suitable aquatic habitat required by the Western pond turtle; however, during periods of
inundation, the Adobe Creek could be used by this species. Since the creek was largely dry at the time of
001-002-14
5.0-15
June 2014
the survey, there is currently low potential for Western pond turtle and two-stripe garter snake to occur
at Well Locations No. 3, No. 11, and No. 12. Impacts are considered less than significant.
Suitable nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk is present near all of the five well sites. Mature trees that are
required for nesting are present in the oak woodland and riparian areas located within 200 feet of Well
Locations No. 2, No. 3, and No. 11. No Cooper’s hawks were observed in any of the five potential well
location areas during the survey; however, a search of the eBird database showed sightings of Cooper’s
hawk within Hans Christian Andersen Park in 2010 and 2014. Cooper’s hawks may be impacted as a
result of any noise associated with drilling and pipeline installation. Based on presence of suitable
habitat and documented occurrence, there is high potential for Cooper’s hawk to occur at Well
Locations No. 3, No. 11, and No. 12. Noise impacts during drilling, testing, and well development
activities would be potentially significant impact.
Suitable habitat for ferruginous hawk and American badger is present within the annual grassland
located at Well Location No. 12. Numerous California ground squirrel burrows were observed
throughout the survey area which indicates the presence of suitable prey base for these species.
American badger has been observed approximately 2.8 miles from this location. Ferruginous hawks have
been observed 3.3 miles to the west and 0.5 miles to the south of this location. Due to suitable habitat
and prey base species for the ferruginous hawk and American badger, impacts would be potentially
significant during drilling, testing, and well development activities at Well Location No. 12.
There is suitable bird nesting and foraging habitat near all well locations, specifically within oak
woodland and riparian vegetation found at Well Locations No. 3, No. 11, and No. 2. Nesting birds are
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code et.
seq. and could be impacted by vegetation removal and noise generated by Project activities. Impacts to
bird species would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to
biological resources to a less-than-significant level.
California Red-legged Frog (Well Locations No. 3 and No. 11)
BIO-1
If Project well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities occur between October 1
through March 31, a biological monitor shall perform a preconstruction survey of the
proposed well sites and pipeline routes associated with Well Locations No. 3 and No. 11
one week (5 days) prior to well drilling and testing to determine the presence of
California red-legged frog. If the biologist does not identify the presence of California
red-legged frog, then well drilling and testing can continue. If the biologist does identify
001-002-14
5.0-16
June 2014
the presence of California red-legged frog, the City shall consult with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife for guidance regarding the California red-legged frog,
and no drilling or construction activities shall occur until this consultation is complete.
Western Pond Turtle (Well Locations No. 3 and No. 11)
BIO-2
All well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities and associated equipment should
be restricted to existing disturbed or developed areas to the extent possible. No
grubbing or clearing is permitted outside of the required 100-by-50-foot area
surrounding the final well location. No removal of trees is permitted.
Nesting Birds (Well Locations No. 2, No. 3, No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12)
BIO-3
Well drilling and pipeline construction activities should be performed outside the bird
nesting season of February 1 to August 31 to avoid impacting nesting birds protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If well drilling and/or pipeline construction
activities occur during February 1 to August 31, a biological monitor shall perform a
preconstruction survey of the proposed well site(s) and pipeline route(s) to determine if
any active bird nests exist within 500 feet of the Project area. Preconstruction surveys
should be conducted within 72 hours prior to the initiation of well drilling and/or
pipeline construction activities. Should an active bird nest be determined to exist during
the preconstruction surveys, a suitable buffer (200 feet for small birds and 500 feet for
raptors) will be established. If active nests are found within the proposed buffer area (as
established above) of a proposed Well Location, drilling should be delayed until after
the chicks have fledged, or until the nest is otherwise inactive; or, if possible, moved
outside of the buffer area away from the nest but within the previously surveyed areas.
If it is not possible to delay drilling or move the well drilling and/or pipeline construction
activities outside of the buffer area, the project biological monitor may allow activities
within a narrower buffer to accommodate either well drilling and/or pipeline
construction activities, and shall be present during all such activities to observe active
nests, and ensure that project activities minimize the likelihood that active nests are
abandoned or fail due to Project activities. If the Project biological monitor determines
that well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities within the narrowed buffer are
causing stress on the nest and its inhabitants, the Project biological monitor shall have
the authority to stop well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities until such time
that the Project biological monitor determine it is ok to proceed. Upon completion of
001-002-14
5.0-17
June 2014
well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities, the Project biological monitor shall
submit a written report to the City of Solvang describing the need for the buffer
reduction (e.g., species-specific information, ambient conditions and birds’ habitation to
them; and the terrain, vegetation, and bird’s lines of sight between the Project activities
and the nest and foraging areas).
American Badger (Well Location No. 12)
BIO-4
To the extent possible, vehicles shall remain on and use existing roads, and/or
previously disturbed areas whenever possible to avoid crushing or collapsing potential
badger burrows.
BIO-5
Cover or ramp all holes and trenches at the end of each day to prevent wildlife from
becoming trapped. Inspect holes that have been covered to ensure that wildlife have
not entered the hole overnight. If wildlife has become trapped and workers are unable
to safely remove it, a qualified biologist should be contacted for assistance.
Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through
BIO-5.
b.
Riparian habitats line the banks of rivers, streams, creeks, and ponds and consist of a variety of
vegetation types. 18 These habitats preserve water quality by filtering sediment and some pollutants
from runoff before it enters the water body, protect stream banks from erosion, provide food and
habitat for fish and wildlife, and preserve open space and aesthetic values.
Well Location No. 11 is located 125 feet west of Adobe Creek which contains riparian habitat. The
discharge of groundwater would not enter into the nearby Adobe Creek. Discharged water would be
allowed to percolate into the ground and controlled by means of grassed swales. Therefore, the testing
and discharge of groundwater would not enter into the nearby riparian area and would not result in a
substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat. The proposed pipeline route would connect east of the
well location. Impacts would be less than significant.
18 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, adopted October 6, 2009, 160.
001-002-14
5.0-18
June 2014
Well Location No. 3 is located approximately 150 feet east of Adobe Creek. The discharge of
groundwater tested would not enter into the nearby Adobe Creek. Discharged water would be allowed
to percolate into the ground and controlled by means of grassed swales. Therefore, the testing and
discharge of groundwater would not enter into the nearby riparian area and would not result in a
substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. The proposed pipeline would connect at the
well location. Impacts would be less than significant.
Well Location No. 2 is located approximately 385 feet to the west of the Alamo Pintada Creek, a
tributary of the Santa Ynez River. The proposed well location is located outside of California Department
of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction and will not be impacted by Project activities. The proposed pipeline
routes would connect to the west of the well location and the construction activities (drilling, well
development, and testing) would not impact riparian habitat. No other riparian habitats were observed
at this site. No significant impacts would occur to riparian areas at this well location.
Well Location No. 10 is in a highly disturbed parking lot approximately 135 feet to the east of the
intersection of Maple Avenue and Alisal Road. The surrounding area is completely developed. Therefore,
construction and testing of the well location and pipelines would not impact riparian habitats. No
significant impacts would occur.
Well Location No. 12 is located approximately 60 feet to the west of a tributary drainage to Adobe
Creek. The discharge of groundwater tested would not enter into the nearby tributary drainage or
Adobe Creek. Discharged water would be allowed to percolate into the ground and controlled by means
of grassed swales. Therefore, the testing and discharge of groundwater would not enter into the nearby
drainage courses. Furthermore, the proposed pipeline route would connect to the City’s water system
east of the well location. Impacts would be less than significant.
Less than significant impacts would occur.
c.
No Impacts.
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act authorizes the State of California to certify that federal
permits and licenses do not violate the State’s water quality standards. Drilling and testing of each well
location would result in the discharge of groundwater across the surface near the drill site.
001-002-14
5.0-19
June 2014
The National Wetlands Mapper does not show any federally protected streams or wetlands or other
water bodies on or adjacent to the proposed well locations. 19 Neither the proposed well locations or
pipeline routes are in proximity to, nor do they contain, wetland habitat or a blue line stream.
Implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means. No significant impacts would occur.
d.
Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation.
Due to the size of the well locations (5,000 square feet) within the surveyed areas and proposed pipeline
routes (up to 12-inch -wide trenches), the drilling, well development, testing, and operation of Well
Locations No. 3, No. 11, No. 2, and No. 10 would not substantially interfere with the movement of native
wildlife species. As discussed in Impact 5.4a, drilling and construction activities have the potential to
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites for ferruginous hawk, Cooper’s hawk, or other migratory
bird species. Mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to nesting bird species to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce potentially significant
impacts.
e.
Well drilling, well development, and pipeline construction activities would not result in the removal of
any trees within any of the proposed well locations. The City of Solvang Municipal Code does not contain
ordinances protecting trees; however, it states that any species of wildlife, nests, and eggs should not be
killed or molested without proper documentation or permit. Mitigation measure BIO-3 would ensure
that nesting bird species would not be adversely impacted by well drilling and pipeline construction
activities. The proposed Project would not interfere or conflict with any local policies or ordinances in
protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Mapper, http://137.227.242.85/wetland/wetland.html.
001-002-14
5.0-20
June 2014
f.
No Impact.
The proposed Well Locations or pipeline routes are not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or any other similar plan. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not conflict with any adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plans.
No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-21
June 2014
5.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in section 15064.5?
b.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 15064.5?
c.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d.
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a.
A historical records search was performed for all five well locations. No historical resources were
identified at Well Locations No. 11, No. 3, No. 10, or No. 12. No impacts would occur at any of these
locations.
Well Location No. 2 is located south of the Santa Ynez Mission. The well itself is not located near a
historic resource. The potential pipeline would be located south of the mission, but would not impact
the historical significance of the mission. The pipeline would be located beneath the ground surface.
Historical impacts would be less than significant at Well Location No. 2.
b.
A Phase I Archaeological Assessment (see Appendix C) for each of the five potential well locations and
pipeline routes was performed to determine the presence of archaeological and prehistoric resources.
As part of the Archaeological Assessment, a records search and pedestrian field survey was conducted at
each of the proposed well locations and pipeline routes.
No archaeological or prehistoric resources were identified at Well Locations No. 3, No. 10, and No. 12
through a records search or during field monitoring. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources at
these well locations and their associated pipelines would be less than significant.
001-002-14
5.0-22
June 2014
Well Location No. 11 and its associated pipeline route are located near Adobe Creek and may contain
buried archaeological deposits due to the archaeological sensitivity of the region. Therefore, potentially
significant impacts could occur to archaeological resources.
Well Location No. 2 and its associated pipeline routes are located within two identified archaeological
areas. Two prehistoric artifacts were identified along the proposed pipeline corridors. Therefore, this
well location has the potential to result in significant impacts on archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures would reduce archaeological impacts to less
than significant.
CUL-1
Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities associated with well development at
Well Location No. 11, Native American representatives from the Santa Ynez Band of
Chumash Indians (Tribe) shall be notified of the pending activities. A qualified
archaeologist shall coordinate with Tribal representatives to draft an archaeological
monitoring plan. During ground-disturbing activities that involve the construction of
pipelines at Well Location No. 11, if there is any evidence of Native American resources
(significant or otherwise), the Tribe shall be notified and construction activities modified
in accordance with the archaeological monitoring plan.
CUL-2
If Well Location No. 2 is selected as a priority well location by the City, subsequent to
well drilling, development and pump testing activities and prior to the start of any
pipeline excavation activities, an Extended Phase I study shall be conducted to
determine the nature of archaeological deposits that may be disturbed by excavation
activities. As part of the Extended Phase I study, a qualified archeologist shall coordinate
with Tribal representatives and draft a monitoring plan for pipeline excavation. Prior to
the start of ground-disturbing activities that involve pipeline construction, the Tribe
shall be notified. If there is any evidence of Native American resources (significant or
otherwise), noted during pipeline construction activities, the construction effort shall
be modified in accordance with the monitoring plan.
Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through
CUL-2.
001-002-14
5.0-23
June 2014
c.
There are no known areas in or around the City that have a significant potential for paleontological
resources. 20 In addition, extensive excavation activities for buildings and infrastructure have taken place
in the City and no unique paleontological or geologic resources have been encountered. Therefore, the
potential to affect a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature would be low. The impact
would be less than significant.
d.
Well Location No. 2 and its associated pipeline routes are located within two identified archaeological
areas. Furthermore, two prehistoric artifacts were identified along the proposed pipeline corridors. In
the event that unrecorded human remains are encountered during drilling, well development, and
testing , impacts to human remains is considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to human remains to less
than significant.
CUL-3
In the event of discovery of human bones, suspected human bones, or a burial, all
excavation in the vicinity shall halt immediately and the area of the find shall 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 shall notify the Santa Barbara County Coroner before additional
disturbance occurs. The City shall ensure that the remains and vicinity of the find are
protected against further disturbance until the Coroner has made a finding with regard
to Public Resources Code (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 shall comply with the provisions of PRC Section 5097.98 regarding
identification and involvement of the appropriate Native American Most Likely
Descendant (MLD).
Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
20 City of Solvang, Solvang General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (1988), 28.
001-002-14
5.0-24
June 2014
5.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a.
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map,
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b.
c.
d.
e.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Discussion
a.
No Impacts.
The Project sites are not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Rupture Zone, as delineated by the
California Geological Survey. 21 Because none of the proposed well locations or pipeline routes are
21 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Regional Geological and Mapping Program,
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.
001-002-14
5.0-25
June 2014
located within a known earthquake fault or fault zone, no impacts from rupture of a fault on the well
would occur.
ii.
The area is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of earthquakes. As noted
previously, the most likely source of strong ground shaking within the region would be a major
earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. Because the well and pipeline locations are in a seismically
active area, occasional seismic ground shaking is likely to occur within the lifetime of the proposed
Project. The City of Solvang lies entirely within Seismic Zone 5 and is potentially subject to high
acceleration, or changes in speed or velocity, due to seismic shaking. 22 The State regulates development
in California through a variety of tools that reduce hazards from earthquakes and other geologic
hazards. The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) contains provisions to safeguard against major
structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The proposed Project
would be required to adhere to the provisions of the 2013 CBC. Compliance with the requirements of
the 2013 CBC for structural safety during a seismic event would reduce hazards from strong seismic
ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv.
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load-supporting capability
when subjected to intense shaking. According to the City’s General Plan, the greatest potential for
liquefaction is found along the Santa Ynez River and tributary stream courses. Therefore, the proposed
well and pipeline locations are located within areas of potential liquefaction.23 The proposed Project
would be required to adhere to the 2013 CBC, which contains provisions for soil preparation to minimize
hazards from liquefaction and other seismic-related ground failures. Impacts would be less than
significant.
22 City of Solvang, General Plan, Safety Element (1988).
23 City of Solvang, General Plan, Safety Element (1988)
001-002-14
5.0-26
June 2014
v.
Less than Significant Impacts.
Landslides are the downslope movement of geologic materials. The risks associated with landslides
occur when buildings or structures are placed on slopes. The proposed well and pipeline locations are
not within or near an area susceptible to landslides according to the City’s General Plan. 24 Each well site
would be a 5,000-square-foot area (about 100 by 50 feet) and would be cleared and graded, if
necessary, to a flat surface in order to minimize any potential landslide probability. No major slopes or
bluffs are on or adjacent to these sites. As such, the proposed Project would not be subject to landslides.
b.
Erosion is the movement of rock fragments and soil from one place to another. Precipitation, running
water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Significant erosion typically occurs on steep slopes
where storm water and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides.
The drilling process would produce cuttings of native clay, silt, sand, and gravel that would be
discharged to the ground adjacent to the drill hole. Each location would include the drilling of wells, with
up to three selected as permanent sites. The size of the well would be up to 24 inches in diameter. The
drilling would produce a total of approximately 98 cubic feet of material which would be discharged into
a containment area created by excavating a 10-by-10-foot area to a depth of about 24 inches, and
surrounding the area with hay bales or grass swales. The displacement of soil at each well location
would not result in a substantial loss of top soil. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.
The proposed well heads may consist of a 24-inch-diameter steel conductor casing set to a depth of 20
feet and cemented in place. The conductor casing may be installed prior to test-hole drilling. A concrete
sanitary seal would be placed in the upper 50 feet of the well annulus between the well casing and the
conductor casing. This will add additional mass and well head protection.
001-002-14
5.0-27
June 2014
Where water lines would be installed beneath paved roads, the asphalt surface would be saw cut, and a
backhoe would be used to excavate a trench for the pipe. The road would be restored to
preconstruction conditions after installing the pipe and backfilling the trench. The lateral pipes would be
installed as needed. Installing the pipes in a trench would require clearing vegetation. After installing the
pipes, the slopes may require slope stabilization by erosion control mats, geo-webbing, and plants.
The Project would not result in substantial hazards from unstable or expansive soils and would be
required to adhere to the 2013 CBC, which contains provisions for soil preparation to minimize hazards
from liquefaction and other unstable geologic features. Impacts would be less than significant.
d.
Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that have the ability to give up water (shrink)
or take on water (swell). When these soils swell, the change in volume can exert pressures that are
placed on them, and structural distress and damage to buildings could occur. Given the relatively minor
amount of clay present in soils in the City, expansive soils are not considered a significant hazard for the
proposed Project. 25 The proposed Project would also be required to adhere to the 2013 CBC, which
contains provisions for soil preparation to minimize hazards from soil expansion. Impacts would be less
than significant.
e.
No Impact.
Development of the proposed Project would not require the installation of a septic tank or alternative
wastewater disposal system. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-28
June 2014
5.7
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a.
Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
b.
Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than
Significant With
Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion
a.
The SBCAPCD has not formally adopted any greenhouse gas emission (GHG) threshold or methodology
for residential and commercial land use projects. Since no threshold has been formally adopted, the
SBCAPCD utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards.
The Project would result in short-term emissions of GHGs during construction. Site-specific or projectspecific data were used in the CalEEMod model where available. Although GHGs are generated during
construction and are accordingly considered one-time emissions, it is important to include constructionrelated GHG emissions when assessing all of the long-term GHG emissions associated with a project.
Therefore, current practice is to annualize construction-related GHG emissions over a project’s lifetime
in order to include these emissions as part of a project’s annualized lifetime total emissions so that GHG
reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction
strategies. A project lifetime has generally been defined as 30 years. In accordance with this
methodology, the Project’s estimated construction GHG emissions have been annualized over a 30-year
period and are included in the annualized operational GHG emissions.
Operational emissions would be generated by vehicle trips because of normal day-to-day activities and
indirect GHG emissions due to electricity demand. Electricity consumption was based on default data
found in CalEEMod for an industrial land use type.
The annual net GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Project are
provided in Table 5.7-1, Operational Unmitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The sum of the direct and
indirect emissions associated with the Project is compared with the BAAQMD threshold of significance
for all land use projects, which is 10,000 MTCO2e per year. As shown, the Project would generate
001-002-14
5.0-29
June 2014
approximately 106 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) annually and would not exceed
the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold.
Table 5.7-1
Operational Unmitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source
Construction (amortized)
Operational (mobile) sources
Area sources
Energy
Waste
Water
Annual Total
Emissions
(MTCO2e/year)
1.83
44.09
0.0
59.79
0.0
0.0
105.71
Source: See the Air Emissions Model Results in Appendix A.
Per SBCAPCD, the district is not required to adopt a GHG threshold. The District proposed
GHG thresholds for stationary sources of 10,000 MTCO2e per year to provide a standard
methodology for GHG impact analysis.
b.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, focuses on reducing GHG
emissions in California. 26 GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted
in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In December 2008, California Air Resources
Board (CARB) adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which details strategies to meet that goal. The
Climate Change Scoping Plan 27 also recommends energy-efficiency measures in buildings such as
maximizing the use of energy-efficient appliances and solar water heating, as well as complying with
green building standards that result in decreased energy consumption compared to Title 24 building
26 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
27 CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
001-002-14
5.0-30
June 2014
codes. 28 In addition, the Climate Change Scoping Plan encourages the use of solar photovoltaic panels
and other renewable sources of energy to provide clean energy and reduce fossil fuel-based energy.
While the Project is not located in the BAAQMD, it can be reasonably assumed that the Project would
also not conflict with AB 32 if it does not exceed the same thresholds. This is a reasonable assumption
because Santa Barbara 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 as
compared to the SFBAAB. The Project would provide additional local water resources to the City upon
operation of the three wells which would reduce dependence on SWP water from ID No. 1. The
reduction in the transfer of water from ID No. 1 to the City would result in lower operational energy
requirements when compared to local supplies. This feature would be consistent with existing
recommendations to reduce GHG emissions. The Project as proposed is considered consistent with the
goals of AB 32. Impacts would be less than significant.
28 California Building Standards Commission, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code.
001-002-14
5.0-31
June 2014
5.8
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d.
Be 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?
e.
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f.
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g.
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h.
Expose 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?
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion
a.
Project Construction
Drilling, well development, and testing activities may involve the use of hazardous materials. Such
materials may include fuels, lubricants, coatings, and grease related to construction equipment and
activities. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to
001-002-14
5.0-32
June 2014
pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short-term or one time in nature and
would cease upon project completion.
The use, transport, storage, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required
to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing
hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an
appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. For example, all
spills or leakage of petroleum products during drilling, well development, testing, and pipeline
construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and
the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding the cleanup
and disposal of the contaminant released. All contaminated waste encountered would be required to be
collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Strict adherence to
all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the City of Solvang, Santa Barbara County Public
Health Department (SBCPHD), and Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) would be required
through the duration of the Project construction. Impacts would be less than significant.
Project Operation
On-site uses during the operation of the wells may involve the use of small amounts of disinfectant
products and related materials that may be categorized as hazardous to ensure that extracted
groundwater does not exceed the California Department of Public Health maximum contaminant levels
allowed in drinking water. These materials would be stored adjacent to the wellhead. The use, storage,
transport and disposal of hazardous materials by maintenance staff would be required to comply with
existing regulations of several agencies, including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), SBCPHD, and SBCFD. Impacts would be less
than significant.
b.
The proposed Project will test up to five well locations in order to select up to three well locations to
supplement the City’s water demand. Operation of the proposed well locations may result in the
001-002-14
5.0-33
June 2014
transport, use, and storage of liquid chlorine and ammonia; chlorine and ammonia would be added to
the water system for disinfection purposes prior to distribution from the wellhead. 29
These chemicals would have the potential to be unintentionally released into the environment during
transport, unloading, or transfer into the water system. Given the adjacent location of Well Locations
No. 10 and No. 12 to residences, an accidental spill would have the potential to result in adverse health
effects to the public or environment. Liquid sodium hypochlorite is extremely corrosive and acute
exposure can cause severe damage to the eyes and skin. For this reason, the use of protective clothing,
including safety glasses or goggles and chemical-resistant gloves, is required while handling and applying
products that contain sodium hypochlorite as the active ingredient. Protection of eyes and skin
substantially reduces the risk of injury. However, uses that result in point source discharges of
hypochlorite-containing effluents are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
which ensures that discharge at each site will not pose significant adverse effects to non-target
organisms.
As part of the disinfection process, the City's distribution system water pipelines would carry chlorinated
water. However, the concentration of chlorine in the distribution lines would not be at a level
considered hazardous; therefore, no aspect of the water distribution system would involve the use of
hazardous materials and the proposed well and pipeline locations would not create a hazard related to
exposure to hazardous materials.
In the event of a release of water from a reservoir tank or burst pipeline resulting from a seismic event,
concentrations of chlorine within the distribution system would not be high enough to be considered
hazardous. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials being released into the environment from
the rupture of a well or pipeline component would be less than significant.
c.
Well Locations No. 3, No. 10, and No. 2 would be located within one-quarter mile of an existing school.
The Solvang Elementary School and Solvang Middle School are located within one-quarter mile of Well
Location No. 3. The Family Partnership Home Study Charter School is located within one-quarter mile of
Well Location No. 10, and the Family Partnership Charter School and Allan Hancock College are located
29 Rick Hoffman & Associates, Hydrologic Investigation and Preliminary Well Siting Technical Memorandum, March 5, 2014.
001-002-14
5.0-34
June 2014
within a one-quarter mile of Well Location No. 2. Drilling, testing, and well development of any of these
proposed well locations would occur within a few weeks. As previously stated in Section 5.3, Air Quality,
the emissions from the construction equipment would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Operation of
the wells would not generate direct emissions or handle substantial amounts of hazardous materials
that would impact people at an existing school. Impacts would be less than significant.
d.
No Impact.
A review of the databases found that the proposed well locations are not listed. However, a leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) hazardous materials site was identified near Well Location No. 10. 30
According to the DTSC, the site has been remediated and the case has been closed since 1993.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
e.
No Impact.
The closest airport to Well Location No. 2 is the Santa Ynez Airport located approximately 3.25 miles to
the east. Therefore, the proposed well locations would not be located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No safety hazard impacts would occur to
people residing or working in the area of the Project.
f.
No Impact.
Well Location No. 2 is located 3.25 miles west of the Santa Ynez Airport. Therefore, the Project would
not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts would occur.
30 California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Envirostor, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed May
23, 2014.
001-002-14
5.0-35
June 2014
g.
All drilling, well development, testing, and pipeline construction activities would occur on site and would
be required to be performed per the City’s and SBCFD standards and regulations. None of the proposed
well locations would be located along an adopted emergency evacuation route. During drilling and
testing and subsequent operation, the proposed Project would not interfere with any of the daily
operations of the City’s Emergency Plans or the SBCFD. The Project would provide necessary on- and offsite access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation
phases.
Project development would not require road closures or otherwise impact the functionality of the
surrounding roads as public safety access routes. 31 Impacts would be less than significant.
h.
No Impact.
The proposed well locations are all within the Santa Ynez Valley and therefore susceptible to wildland
fires. Also susceptible to wildland fire are those areas with more vegetation. The City is not listed as a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) by the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. 32 The
Project does not contain a habitable component that would be subject to wildland fire hazards. No
31 City of Solvang, Emergency Management Plan, Revised June 2013.
32 California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Update Project, www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention_wildland_statewide.php.
001-002-14
5.0-36
June 2014
5.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a.
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b.
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 preexisting nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c.
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d.
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e.
Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g.
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h.
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j.
Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
001-002-14
5.0-37
June 2014
Discussion
a.
Testing/Construction Phase
Although all proposed well and pipeline locations are essentially flat and the potential for soil erosion is
considered to be relatively low, peak stormwater runoff could result in short-term sheet erosion within
areas of exposed or stockpiled soils. Additionally, the compaction of soils by heavy equipment may
reduce the infiltration capacity of soils and increase runoff and erosion potential. Given the above,
pollutants such as soil, sediments, and other substances associated with drilling and well development
activities (e.g., oil, gasoline, grease, and surface litter) could directly enter the Alamo Pintado or Adobe
Creeks or filter into the local groundwater during Project testing.
The Central Coast RWQCB implements State and federal water quality laws within the Central Coast
Region, including Santa Barbara County. The Central Coast RWQCB regulates point discharges and
stormwater discharge from construction sites and agricultural lands. The Central Coast RWQCB adopted
Resolution R3-2008-0010 which is a general waiver for specific types of discharges, including muds from
water-supply well drilling. 33 Specific conditions must be met in order to receive a waiver from the
Central Coast RWQCB. Conditions for monitoring well development and aquifer and water disposal from
well-pump tests include: (1) implement appropriate management practices to dissipate energy and
prevent erosion; (2) implement appropriate management practices to preclude discharge to surface
waters and surface water drainage courses; and (3) the discharge area is within 100 feet of a stream,
body of water, or wetland, and is not within 200 feet of a water-supply well.
Conditions for mud disposal from water-supply well drilling include: (1) discharge be spread over an
undisturbed, vegetated area capable of absorbing the top-hole water and filtering solids in the
discharge, and spread in a manner that prevents a direct discharge to surface waters; (2) the pH of the
discharge is between 6.5 and 8.3; (3) the discharge not contain oil or grease; and (4) the discharge area
is not within 100 feet of a stream, body of water, or wetland, nor within streamside riparian corridors.
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the development and testing of any of the proposed
well locations would result in minimal amounts of soil stockpiling and would provide BMPs, such as the
placement of hay bales to control the direction of discharge of extracted groundwater. The discharge
would be spread over a vegetated area capable of absorbing top-hole water and filtering solids. During
33 California Regional Water Quality Control, Board Central Coast Region, Resolution R3-2008-0010 May 9, 2008.
001-002-14
5.0-38
June 2014
the development and testing of each well location, the cuttings and groundwater produced by each hole
would be discharged into a containment area. This area would be a 10-by-10-foot excavated area that
would be surrounded by hay bales. The water would soak into the ground and the sediment would be
contained. No cuttings or fluids would be permitted to flow into an adjacent stream. All proposed well
location discharge areas would be located 100 feet from a nearby stream and 200 feet from a nearby
water supply well.
The Project would meet all discharge waiver requirements and would, therefore, be exempt from the
Central Coast RWQCB well testing requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Phase
The groundwater would be treated, if necessary, to meet the drinking standards set forth in the DPH.34
The amount of runoff from the site would not substantially change from existing conditions as the
development area would be less than 5,000 square feet with the well head area less than 10 square
feet. Impacts would be less than significant.
b.
Each well location would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of impervious surface. Each
wellhead would only cover an area less than 10 square feet. This would not interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
The well siting history indicates that siting a new well greater than 500 horizontal feet of an existing well
would likely not interfere with the existing well operations. Each proposed well location would be
greater than 500 feet from a nearby well. 35 The proposed well locations would likely not interfere with
the existing well operations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
34 California Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Program, http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/DWP.aspx
35 U.S. Geological Survey, Groundwater Watch, Santa Barbara County, California,
http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/countymaps/CA_083.html. 2014.
001-002-14
5.0-39
June 2014
c.
The proposed Project would include well development and testing of each well site and operation of up
to three wells with associated pipeline infrastructure. As discussed above in 5.9a, during the drilling,
testing, and construction of each well location, groundwater discharge containment areas would be
provided adjacent to the well location and lined with hay bales, or a similar BMP, to prohibit erosion and
siltation off site. Each well location would be designed to allow the existing drainage pattern of the site
to continue and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Impacts would be less
than significant.
d.
The Adobe and Alamo Pintado Creeks are located near three of the proposed well locations. The closest
well location would be approximately 125 feet from Adobe Creek. Due to the distance of each of the
well sites from a creek, the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river.
During the testing of each well location, the discharge would be contained within a 10-by-10-foot area
using hay bales, or a similar BMP, and allowed to infiltrate over existing vegetation. Well Locations No.
11, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 12 would discharge to the adjacent ground surface area while Well location 10
would discharge into the City’s sewer system. The design of each well site would allow post construction
water runoff to continue in existing directions. As such, the proposed Project would not alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alternation of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on or off site. Less than significant impacts would occur.
e.
As currently developed, the only well location that would contribute runoff water into the existing onand off-site storm water drainage system is Well Location No. 10. All other well locations are within
vegetated areas. Project development would result in negligible amounts of new impervious surfaces
which would create or contribute runoff water exceeding the existing storm drain system. Impacts
001-002-14
5.0-40
June 2014
f.
As previously discussed, the drilling, testing, and construction of three well locations would include
BMPs such as hay bales to minimize erosion and surface water runoff from the site. Groundwater
extracted during the testing phase would be allowed to infiltrate the ground adjacent to the test site.
Therefore, Project development operations would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
The amount of impervious surfaces on site at Project completion would be similar to existing conditions.
The amount of runoff from the site would not be substantially changed to that of existing conditions, as
Project development would not increase the amount of runoff or contribute to the degradation of water
quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
g.
No Impact.
The proposed Project does not propose the development of new homes. The City of Solvang Safety
Element designates the well locations as being located in areas outside 500-year flood(s) on the Flood
Hazards map. 36 Additionally, the well locations would not be located within a 100-year flood zone. 37 No
h.
As previously noted, the well locations are not located within an area designated as a 100-year flood
zone. 38 The size of the well heads would be approximately 10 square feet in size and pipelines would be
located below the ground surface. The small size of each well would not impede or redirect potential
flood flows outside of a 100-year flood hazard area. Project development would not include the
development of any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect
flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.
37 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Barbara County, Map Number 06083C1059G
and 06083C1057G, Revised December 4, 2012.
38 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Barbara County, Map Number 06083C1059G
and 06083C1057G, Revised December 4, 2012.
001-002-14
5.0-41
June 2014
i.
The closet dam to the proposed well locations is Bradbury Dam, which lies approximately 9 miles to the
east. Flood control structures are required by the California State Water Code to be monitored for
structural safety and for the potential to pose a flooding risk to the City. However, in the event of failure,
the well locations are located outside the inundation pathway for the structure. 39 As a result the threat
of inundation is considered very low. Impacts would be less than significant.
k.
No Impact.
A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake.
Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if
the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or
other artificial body of water. Seiches are potentially hazardous when the wave action created in lakes
or bays is strong enough to threaten human beings and structures near the body of water.
The proposed well locations and pipelines are not located near any inland water bodies or water storage
tanks that could pose a flood hazard to the sites due to a seiche or failure. No impacts would occur.
A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often
due to earthquakes. The proposed well locations and pipelines are approximately 8.25 miles inland from
the Pacific Ocean. Impacts from a tsunami are highly unlikely and as such no significant impacts would
occur.
A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement.
The proposed well and pipeline locations and surrounding area are generally flat with gradual changes in
elevation. Impacts from mudflows are highly unlikely and less than significant impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-42
June 2014
5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a.
Physically divide an established
community?
b.
Conflict with applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including,
but not limited to, the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c.
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Discussion
a.
The proposed Project would test up to five potential well locations, four within the City and one within
an unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County. The development of the proposed wells would
consist of facilities that would extend below the ground surface and protrude 3 feet above the ground
surface and pipelines that would be located below the ground surface. Well Locations No. 11 and No. 3
are within Hans Christian Anderson Park and would be at a lower elevation than the residential
neighborhoods to the northeast and west. Well Location No. 2 would be located north and northeast of
single-family residences within an existing agricultural field. Well Location No. 10 would be located
within the parking lot of the Veteran’s Memorial Building and Well Location No. 12 would be located
within an open field west and east of existing residences. The building for the well at Well Location No.
12 would be lower in elevation than the surrounding residences, and would be painted a low earth-tone
color, and would be designed in conformance with the County’s current building standards and
architecture similar to residences to the east and west. The well at Location No. 12 within an
unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County would not divide future agricultural operations. The
size and location of the proposed well locations would not physically divide nearby residential
neighborhoods. The associated pipelines would be located below ground and would therefore not
physically divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant.
001-002-14
5.0-43
June 2014
b.
The City’s General Plan designates Well Locations No. 3 and No. 11 as Open Space/Recreation and both
locations are zoned for Recreation. 40 Well Location No. 2 is designated as Low Density Residential and
zoned as Residential. Well Location No. 10 is designated and zoned for Institutional Well testing is
allowed in every zone surrounding the Well locations.
Section 11-2-3 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts all development within all zoning designations for
City development projects. All well locations will be developed by the City and therefore would be
exempt from the City’s zoning requirements. The Project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan
land use or zoning designations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Well Location No. 12 is located just outside City limits in unincorporated Santa Barbara County within an
Agricultural zone. The well is located within an open area directly adjacent to the low-density residential
zone in the City. The AG-I-5 zone allows and permits the development of wells with the submittal of a
water well permit application to the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Environmental
Health Services Division. Furthermore, the County does not require a conditional use permit (CUP) for
well sites in County jurisdiction as the City is a local agency. 41 The City would be required to submit a
water well permit application to the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Health Services Division.
This well and pipeline location would not conflict with the County of Santa Barbara Zoning Code.
c.
No Impacts.
The City of Solvang (including Well Location No. 12) is within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara
County Regional Conservation Strategy (SBRCS). 42 However, the SBRCS was discontinued as of March
2008. As a result the Project area would not conflict with any conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. No impacts would occur.
40 City of Solvang, General Plan Land Use Element, Figure 2 Land Use Map, 2008.
41 Communication between Arleen Pelster, Planning & Economic Development Director and the County of Santa Barbara,
Planning Division.
42 County of Santa Barbara, Regional Conservation Strategy (2008).
001-002-14
5.0-44
June 2014
5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a.
Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the
State?
b.
Result in the loss of availability of
a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a.
No Impact.
According to the City’s General Plan, the proposed well and pipeline locations are within the Mineral
Resources Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is an area where significant mineral deposits cannot be evaluated
based on current and available data. 43 The proposed well and pipeline locations and surrounding areas
have no substantial records of mineral resources. No impacts would occur to the loss of a known
mineral resource.
b.
No Impact.
As previously discussed, the proposed well locations are not located within important mineral resource
areas. The nearest oil extraction field is the Zaca Oil Field located approximately 8 miles to the north of
the City. Oil is also extracted at the Barham Ranchy Oil Field located approximately 8.5 miles northwest
of the City. Due to the distance of these oil resources from the proposed well locations, the Project
would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recover sites delineated
on the City’s local General Plan. No impacts would occur.
43 City of Solvang, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element (1998).
001-002-14
5.0-45
June 2014
5.12 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE – Would the project:
a.
Result in exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b.
Result in exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c.
Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
d.
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the
Project?
e.
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f.
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a.
Construction
The City’s General Plan Noise Element 44 includes guidelines to evaluate ambient noise and land use
compatibility. For the average community, outdoor noise levels up to 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) and
indoor noise levels up to 40 dBA are considered acceptable. Table 5.12-1, Existing Ambient Noise
Levels, shows the existing short-term (20-minute) ambient noise levels adjacent to each well location
near the closest sensitive receptor.
44 City of Solvang, General Plan, Noise Element (2013).
001-002-14
5.0-46
June 2014
Table 5.12-1
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Location Description
Ambient Noise Levels (dBA)
Well Location No. 11
49.7
Well Location No. 3
47.5
Well Location No. 2
44.0
52.0
42.2
Note: For Noise and Vibration Background Data, Please refer to Appendix D.
As shown in Table 5.12-1, on-site noise measurement locations ranged from 42.2 dBA to 52.0 dBA.
Higher ambient noise levels were found along off-site monitoring points that were adjacent to
roadways.
The Solvang Municipal Code Section 11-12-21 45 establishes allowable timeframes for construction and
limits such to 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays. No construction shall be allowed on Saturday, Sunday,
State or national holidays except as approved in writing by the public works director, or his designee, or
in the case of an emergency for the immediate preservation of life, health, or property.
According to the Santa Barbara County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, noise from
grading and construction activity proposed within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors would be affected by
noise levels over 65 dBA. 46 To mitigate this impact, high producing noise activities within 1,600 feet of
sensitive receptors shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM only. Noise
attenuation barriers and muffling of grading equipment may also be required.
Estimated noise levels associated with the well and pipeline construction phases are presented in Table
5.12-2, Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Equipment. Equipment estimates for drilling,
well development, trenching, and pipeline construction activity noise levels are representative of
“worse-case” conditions since they assumed several pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
45 Solvang Municipal Code, Chapter 12 Supplemental Regulations, Section 11-12-21, “Hours of Construction.”
46 County of Santa Barbara, Planning and Development, Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, October 2008,
Section 12. Noise Thresholds.
001-002-14
5.0-47
June 2014
Table 5.12-2
Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Grader
Drill Rig
Dump Truck
Backhoe
Approximate Leq dB(A)
50 Feet
100 Feet
25 Feet
87
84
90
82
81
78
84
76
75
72
78
70
200 Feet
69
66
72
64
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Construction Noise Handbook, Chapter 9.0, August 2006.
Note: Leq = equivalent sound level.
Well drilling activities for each of the proposed wells require various lengths of time depending on the
type of test being conducted. Therefore, drilling typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM to limit
the number of consecutive days performing tests at each well location. Well drilling would occur outside
of the established construction hours of the Santa Barbara County noise thresholds, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact.
The step-drawdown test would include a series of four individual steps lasting 1 hour each. These steps
would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Depending on conditions, some of these steps
can be run for a shorter duration (i.e., 30 minutes).
The constant discharge test would run for a period between 4 to 12 hours, depending on the results of
the initial test. The Santa Barbara County Test Pump Ordinance allows for the running of a 12-hour
constant discharge test for well yields in excess of 50 gpm. If the well produces less than 50 gpm, the
test has to be run for 24 hours. The County also allows for shorter duration tests for high-yield wells
(greater than 50 gpm) whereby a California Certified Hydrogeologist would be allowed to oversee the
running of a 4-hour test. 47
During the drilling and construction of the proposed Project, standard construction equipment, such as
trucks, a drill rig, backhoes, and other standard construction equipment would be used for short
durations. Table 5.12-2 presents the estimated noise levels associated with the grading, drilling, and
trenching phases of both the wells and pipelines.
47 Santa Barbara County Code, Section 34B-18, Ordinance 12-4843.
001-002-14
5.0-48
June 2014
Sound generated by the construction noise source typically diminishes at a rate of 6 dBA over hard
surfaces, such as asphalt, and 7.5 dBA over soft surfaces, such as vegetation, for each doubling of
distance. When sound is blocked by line of sight, sound levels decrease up to 5 dBA.
Well Location No. 11 is located within a public park with the closest sensitive receptor located
approximately 325 feet to the northwest of the proposed drilling activities. The area surrounding this
site is heavily vegetated and lower in elevation than the sensitive receptors to the west. When all pieces
of equipment are operating at the same time, which is a conservative estimate, noise levels at the
nearest sensitive receptor would be 67.4 dBA. Due to the change in elevation from the well location to
the sensitive receptor, noise levels would be further reduced by 5 dBA, to 62.4 dBA. However, it should
be noted that the construction of the pipeline activities would occur within 50 feet of the nearest
residence for the period of a few days and could result in a significant construction noise impact with
noise levels up to 76 dBA.
Well Location No. 3 is located within the public park with the closest sensitive receptor located
approximately 290 feet to the northeast of the wellhead. The area surrounding this site is heavily
vegetated and lower in elevation than the sensitive receptors to the northeast. Grading, drilling, and
pipeline activities would generate noise levels up to 68.3 dBA over the length of a week. The noise levels
would exceed the City’s standards and as such impacts would be considered potentially significant.
Well Location No. 2 is located approximately 375 feet north of the closest sensitive receptor. Grading,
drilling, and pipeline construction activities would generate noise levels up to 66.1 dBA over the length
of a few weeks. However, it should be noted that the construction of the pipeline activities would occur
within 50 feet of the nearest residence for the period of a few days and could result in a significant
construction noise impact with noise levels up to 76 dBA.
Well Location No. 10 is located on City property in the parking lot of the Veteran Memorial Building.
Sensitive uses are located approximately 130 feet to the northeast of the proposed well location.
Grading, drilling, and pipeline construction activities could generate noise levels up to 75.3 dBA over the
length of a week. The noise levels would exceed the City’s standards, and as such, impacts would be
considered potentially significant.
Construction of well facilities within the proposed Well Location No. 12 located within unincorporated
Santa Barbara County would be subject to the County’s noise threshold of 65 dBA. The nearest sensitive
receptor to the proposed well location within the County is approximately 325 feet to the northwest.
Grading and drilling activities would generate noise levels would be up to 67.4 dBA over the length of a
week. Trenching activities for pipeline construction would occur within 50 feet of the existing residences
001-002-14
5.0-49
June 2014
east of the site within the City. These activities would generate noise levels up to 76 dBA. The noise
levels generated during the grading, drilling and pipeline activities would exceed the County’s and City’s
standards. As such, impacts would be considered potentially significant.
Operation
Operation of the three proposed new wells would not generate a discernible amount of noise, as the
pumps and motors 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). The
wellhead and equipment at Well Location No. 12 would be enclosed within a building. As such,
operational noise impacts generated by the wells would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed well pumps would also include the following maintenance procedures:
•
Conduct routine operation maintenance checks.
•
Conduct routine general well site cleaning and maintenance.
•
Annually perform major maintenance and clean-up.
Should well sites 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 dBA 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. Use of submersible pumps and
motors would reduce noise impacts from the well pumps to less than significant.
Project-Related Traffic
As discussed in Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Project would construct and
operate multiple wells which would generate additional trips during drilling, testing, construction of
other infrastructure, and trips during maintenance and operation. This would result in negligible
increases in ambient roadway noise conditions. Overall traffic noise would remain similar to existing
conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts.
001-002-14
5.0-50
June 2014
NOS-1
For all drilling and well-related construction activities, noise-attenuation techniques
shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains as low as possible during
construction. The following noise-attenuation techniques 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, high noiseproducing activities shall be scheduled between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday
through Friday only.
•
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
30 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.
Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOS-1.
001-002-14
5.0-51
June 2014
b.
Construction activities could generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses.
Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish
in amplitude with distance from the source. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach
levels that could damage structures, but can achieve the perceptible ranges in buildings close to a
construction site.
The closest sensitive receptor to any of the proposed well locations would be Well Location No. 10.
Multi-family uses are located approximately 130 feet north of the proposed well location. The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) threshold for architectural damage to non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings is approximately 94 VdB (vibration decibels). Loaded trucks would create the greatest amount
of vibration for equipment to be used during construction and are capable of producing approximately
92 VdB at 15 feet. Vibration levels attenuate (decrease) 6 decibels every doubling of distance; therefore,
vibration levels would decrease as the distance from the well site operation increases and would be
approximately 64 VdB at the multi-family uses to the north, below the FTA vibration threshold. Impacts
c.
Operation of wells would be subject to the applicable City and County noise threshold of 65 dBA. Wells
would be operated using submersible pumps and motors, which would significantly 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, wells would operate for
several hours, up to several days per week. Thus, operational related noise would be episodic in nature
and generally not steady over long periods of time. Therefore, operational noise levels of wells within
the proposed Well Locations would not result in a substantial increase in the permanent ambient levels.
d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
During the drilling and construction of the proposed Project, standard construction equipment, such as
trucks, loaders, drill rig, backhoes, soil compactors, and other standard construction equipment would
001-002-14
5.0-52
June 2014
be used for short durations. Table 5.12-2 presents the estimated noise levels associated with the
grading, drilling, and construction phases of both the wells and pipelines. As discussed in Section 5.12.a,
grading, drilling, and pipeline construction activities would have the potential to exceed the City’s and
County’s noise standards for noise levels at sensitive receptors. As such, noise levels generated during
these short term and temporary activities would be potentially significant.
In general, construction noise would be noticeable during the operation of heavy construction
equipment during the installation of each well; however, these activities would be limited to a few days
within a few weeks span.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOS-1 has been identified to reduce impacts to less than
significant.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e.
No Impact.
The closest airport to Well Location No. 2 is the Santa Ynez Airport located approximately 3.25 miles to
the east. Therefore, the proposed well locations would not be located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project would not expose people residing
or working in the area to excessive noise levels.
f.
No Impact.
Well Location No. 2 is located 3.25 miles west of the Santa Ynez Airport. Therefore, the Project would
not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impacts would
occur.
001-002-14
5.0-53
June 2014
5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a.
Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b.
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c.
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a.
No Impact.
The proposed Project does not include the development of new homes or businesses, and would not
extend utilities to areas of the City that are not currently served by existing water infrastructure. The
development of the proposed groundwater wells would supplement a portion of the City’s SWP water
supplies to improve the City’s reliability. As such, it would not induce substantial population into the
area. No impacts would occur.
b.
No Impact.
The Project would utilize existing open space areas and would not displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would
occur.
c.
No Impact.
The Project would utilize existing open space areas and would not displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-54
June 2014
5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a.
No Impact.
Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City of Solvang are provided by the SBCFD. The
only fire station in Solvang is located at 1644 Oak Street in the heart of the City.
During construction and subsequent operation, the proposed Project would not interfere with any of
the daily operations of the City’s Emergency Plans nor would it require additional staff from the SBCFD.
All construction activities, including staging, would occur on site and would be required to be performed
per SBCFD’s and the City’s standards and regulations. The proposed Project is not expected to result in
an increase in calls for emergency fire and medical services. Project development would not require the
construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities. No impacts would occur.
b.
No Impact.
Police protection services in the City of Solvang are provided by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s
Department, which operates out of its police facility at 1745 Mission Drive, approximately 200 feet
southeast of the Well Location No. 10. As the Project involves testing and operating well locations, it
would not increase the numbers of people on site.
Police services would be adequate and development of the proposed Project would not result in an
increase in calls for police services, as it would not generate additional population. Project development
would not require the construction of new or expanded police facilities. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-55
June 2014
c.
No Impact.
The proposed project will test and operate well locations within the City and/or potentially in
unincorporated portions of the County of Santa Barbara. Development of the proposed Project would
not generate additional people nor require the construction of a new school. Rather, it would develop
ancillary well facilities to serve the City. No impacts would occur.
d.
Demand for parks and recreational facilities in an area are usually determined by the area’s population.
The proposed Project would not construct any dwelling units nor would it generate additional
population. However, the Project would develop well and pipelines facilities within Hans Christian
Anderson Park at Well Location No. 3 and No. 11. Drilling, well development, and testing, activities are
analyzed throughout this document. Construction- and operation-related impacts within this park would
result in less than significant impacts. Demand for recreational services would remain the same as this
Project would not directly or indirectly induce population to the City. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not require construction of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities. No impacts would
occur.
e.
No Impact.
A public library is provided by the City of Solvang, which is located at 1745 Mission Drive, approximately
200 feet southeast of Well Location No. 10. Proposed development of the Project would not require the
construction of new or expanded library facilities. Project development would not increase the number
of people in the City. Demand for library services would remain the same. Therefore, the Project would
not require construction of new or expanded libraries. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-56
June 2014
5.15 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION – Would the project:
a.
Increase 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?
b.
Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Discussion
a.
No Impact.
Demand for parks and recreational facilities in an area are usually determined by the area’s population.
Project development would only utilize open space areas to drill, test and operate future wells. There
would be no increase to population so demand for recreational services would remain the same and
deterioration to recreational facilities would not occur. No impacts would occur.
b.
No Impact.
The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-57
June 2014
5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:
a.
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b.
Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e.
Result in inadequate emergency access?
f.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion
a.
Short-term increases to traffic would occur during the drilling and testing for each well location, as well
as for the construction of the pipeline facilities associated with each well. It is anticipated that workers
for either the drilling/testing phase or the pipeline construction phase would arrive and leave the
construction site during off-peak hours, thus minimizing any traffic increases for the City’s residents. The
amount of traffic generated is deemed insignificant due to the relative small-scale size of the well and
pipeline locations. Short-term traffic impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 2.3, Project Description, the proposed Project would generate up to 12
additional trips per week for maintenance activities at the proposed well locations and pipeline facilities.
001-002-14
5.0-58
June 2014
Any traffic generated would occur during off-peak hours and the amount of traffic generated is deemed
insignificant due to current conditions. Development of the proposed Project would not result in any
substantial increase in existing trips during peak hours. Impacts would be less than significant.
b.
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) in effect in Santa Barbara County was issued by the Santa
Barbara County Transportation Commission in June 2009. 48 The nearest CMP-designated roadway is SR
101, approximately 2.5 miles west of Well Location No. 11. However as previously stated, the Project
would only generate trips within the City during well drilling and construction of associated
infrastructure, and would not affect SR 101. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.
No Impact.
Well Location No. 2 is located approximately 3.25 miles from the Santa Ynez Airport. The Project would
not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Airplane takeoffs and landing are at a sufficient distance
from the locations not to pose as a safety risk. No impacts would occur.
d.
No Impact.
No changes are proposed as part of the Project to the surrounding road system. Clear and uninterrupted
access to the well locations for emergency response vehicles would continue to be provided. The Project
would be compatible with the surrounding zoning designations and the existing uses. No impacts would
occur.
48 Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program,
http://www.sbcag.org/PDFs/publications/2009%20CMP%20Plan%20FINAL%20w%20Appendices.pdf
001-002-14
5.0-59
June 2014
e.
No Impact.
The proposed Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as
set forth in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and safety standards set forth by the
SBCFD. Existing emergency access to properties along the surrounding roadways would not be altered or
disrupted under construction and operational phases and no changes to the off-site roadway system
would be necessary. Project-related drilling, well development, testing, and pipeline construction
activities would not require lane closures of any surrounding roadways. No impacts would occur.
f.
No Impact.
As previously stated, the proposed Project would not result in the increase of people, thereby
eliminating the need for additional public transit services, nor would it result in straining the current
system. As the proposed Project would not result in any changes to the roadway system, current bus
routes would stay the same.
No changes to the sidewalk and roadway system are proposed with respect to the proposed Project.
Therefore, residents would be able to bike or walk around the existing well sites using the existing
sidewalk and roadway system. Sidewalks, walkways, and roadways would remain the same and continue
to serve the Project sites and surrounding communities and would not be modified or removed.
However, appropriate safeguards would be used (if necessary) during Project construction so that any
construction traffic would not pose a hazard to pedestrians. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-60
June 2014
5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b.
Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c.
Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d.
Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new and expanded
entitlements needed?
e.
Result 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?
f.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g.
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a.
The proposed Project would not generate industrial wastewater or new point sources of wastewater
such as mining, animal feed lots, wastewater treatment facilities, etc., that would require an individual
permit beyond the capabilities of the existing wastewater treatment facilities serving the City.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in wastewater generation.
As previously discussed in Section 5.9a, the discharge of groundwater during well testing is exempt from
the Central Coast RWQCB point source requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
001-002-14
5.0-61
June 2014
b.
Project development would not require the construction or expansion of water treatment facilities. The
proposed Project would supplement a portion of the existing water supply from the SWP for the City.
Project development would require the construction of new pipelines and other infrastructure to
connect the wells with the City’s water supply system. These pipelines will connect with the closest
waterlines. No other additional facilities are required. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.
No Impact.
Upon completion of the proposed Project, drainage runoff from the well locations would be minimal
and all possible runoff would be adequately handled by the existing drainage system for Well Location
No. 10. The existing storm drain system has been engineered to handle runoff from the Project sites and
has adequate capacity to handle drainage flows from the sites. Additionally, the amount of runoff from
the site would be similar to that of existing conditions. Project development would not require the
construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities. No impacts would occur.
d.
No Impact.
As previously mentioned, up to three long-term well locations would be constructed to produce a
combined output of 500 to 600 gpm as a source of long-term water supply for the City as a more reliable
source to supplement water deliveries from the SWP. Development of an alternate water supply would
provide the City with additional sources of water during drought conditions. No impacts would occur.
e.
As previously mentioned, the proposed Project would not generate any potential wastewater.
Furthermore, the testing and construction of any of the proposed well locations would result in minimal
amounts of soil stockpiling and would provide BMPs, such as hay bales, to control the direction of
discharge of extracted groundwater. The discharge will be spread over a vegetated area capable of
absorbing the top-hole water and filtering solids. During the testing of each well location, the cuttings
and groundwater produced by each hole would be discharged into a containment area. This area would
be a 10-by-10-foot excavated area that will be surrounded by hay bales. The water would soak into the
001-002-14
5.0-62
June 2014
ground and the sediment would be contained. No cuttings or fluids would be permitted to flow into an
adjacent stream. All proposed well location discharge areas will be located 100 feet from a nearby
stream and 200 feet from a nearby water supply well. After completion of each well, the well screen and
casing materials would be installed and the drill casing would be extracted. The Project would meet all
discharge waiver requirements and would, therefore, be exempt from the Central Coast RWQCB well
testing requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
f.
The proposed Project would not generate solid waste during site preparation and construction activities
and also during the operational phase. Project development would not require additional landfill
capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.
g.
No Impact.
The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing
solid waste. The proposed project would not affect the City of Solvang’s ability to continue to meet the
required AB 939 waste diversion requirements. No impacts would occur.
001-002-14
5.0-63
June 2014
5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a.
b.
c.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – Does the project:
Have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
With Project
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion
a.
Implementation of the Project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Natural communities and populations of rare or
threatened plant or animal species do not exist on or near the well and pipeline locations and would
therefore not be impacted. The proposed Project would not have any significant impacts on the quality
of the natural environment or on evidence of California’s history or prehistory.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to wildlife species and
cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
Biological Resources
All well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities and associated equipment shall abide by
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 as identified in Section 5.4, Biological Resources.
001-002-14
5.0-64
June 2014
Cultural Resources
All well drilling and/or pipeline construction activities and associated equipment shall abide by
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 as identified in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
b.
Development of the proposed Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project would construct and test well systems and their
associated pipeline infrastructure. Up to three long-term well locations would be constructed to
produce a combined output of 500 to 600 gpm as a source of long-term water supply for the City. The
proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not weigh short-term goals above long-term environmental
goals of the City. Additionally, the issues relevant to the proposed Project are localized and confined to
the immediate Project areas. There are no unusual circumstances relating to the project, nor are there
any successive projects of the same type in the same place that would render any impacts as significant
or cumulatively considerable. No significant cumulatively considerable impacts are anticipated to result
from the proposed Project. No impacts would occur.
c.
The proposed Project’s potential impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and
other environmental issues have been reviewed. The analysis found that development and operation of
the proposed project would result in less-than-significant adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than
significant.
Noise
For all noise-generating activities during grading, drilling, well development, and pipeline construction at
the well locations, additional noise attenuation techniques should be employed to reduce noise levels as
identified in Mitigation Measure NOS-1 identified in Section 5.12, Noise.
001-002-14
5.0-65
June 2014
001-002-14
5.0-66
June 2014
6.0 REFERENCES
The following documents and information were used in the preparation of this Negative Declaration:
Applied Earthworks Inc., Phase I ESA – Five Water Well Sites and Associated Supply lines near Solvang,
Santa Barbara County, California (May 15, 2014).
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
California Building Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx.
California Building Standards Commission, 2010 Green Building Standards Code,
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf.
California Building Standards Commission, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, California Building
Standards Code.
California Code of Regulations, sec. 15000, et seq., State CEQA Guidelines.
California Department of Conservation, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Regional Geological and Mapping
Program, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, The Land Conservation
(Williamson) Act, (1965).
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Santa Barbara County
Important Farmland 2010, (January 2012).
California Department of Fire and Forestry Protection (CalFire), Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps,
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones.php.
California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Envirostor, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC), EnviroStor,
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Transportation, Eligible Scenic Highways,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm.
California Department of Transportation, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Schools,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2012.htm.
001-002-14
6.0-1
June 2014
6.0 References
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Standards and Area Designation,
www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005.
California Health and Safety Code, sec. 66261.24.
California Public Resources Code, Title 14, sec. 21000, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
California Public Resources Code, Title 14, sec. 5020-5029.5, California Register of Historical Resources.
California Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), 2012.
CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
City of Solvang Municipal Code, sec. 11-12-21, Construction Times.
City of Solvang, General Plan, Circulation Element (2008).
City of Solvang, General Plan, Land Use Element (2008).
City of Solvang, General Plan, Noise Element (2013).
City of Solvang, General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element (2009).
City of Solvang, General Plan, Safety Element (1988).
City of Solvang, Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
http://www.cityofsolvang.com/index.php/departments/public-works/wastewater-division.
City of Solvang, Water Master Plan Update, (2011)
Code of Federal Regulations, sec. 60, National Register Federal Program Regulations.
County of Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, adopted October 6, 2009, 160.
Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Plan (SBCALUP), Santa Ynez Airport.
http://www.sbcag.org/PDFs/publications/ALUP%20Full%20Document.pdf.
Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program,
http://www.sbcag.org/PDFs/publications/2009%20CMP%20Plan%20FINAL%20w%20Appendices
.pdf
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
001-002-14
6.0-2
June 2014
6.0 References
SWRCB, 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml.
U.S. Department of Transportation (1980), 97.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EnviroMapper,
http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lrca.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Solid Waste Disposal Act,
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/Irca.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swppp.cfm.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Mapper, http://137.227.242.85/wetland/wetland.html.
001-002-14
6.0-3
June 2014
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Solvang
Arleen Pelster, AICP, Planning and Economic Development Director
Matt van der Linden, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARATION
Meridian Consultants LLC
Joe Gibson, Principal
Chris Hampson, Project Manager
Jose Fernandez, Staff Planner
Lisa Maturkanic, Publications Coordinator
Bryna Fischer, Editor
Tom Brauer, Graphics Coordinator
BioResource Consultants Inc.
Brian Holly, Vice President, Senior Ecologist
Evan Sharp, Project Manager, Environmental Scientist
Applied Earthworks Inc.
Michael Mirro, Associate Archaeologist
Eric Nocerino, Staff Archaeologist
001-002-14
7.0-1
June 2014

Solvang Upland Wells Project

Transcription

Similar documents