walmart expansion project draft eir - · pdf filewalmart expansion project draft eir volume i...

Walmart Expansion Project

Draft EIR

Volume I

SCH No. 2009081045DR 08-09

EIR 09-02

May 2010

Prepared for:The City of Lompoc

100 Civic Center PlazaLompoc, California 93436

City of Lompoc

Prepared by:

803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite ACamarillo, California 93012(805) 437-1900 FAX (805) 437-1901www.impactsciences.com

IMPACT SCIENCES, INC.

Walmart Expansion ProjectDraft Environmental Impact Report

SCH No. 2009081045

Volume I

City Project Numbers:

EIR 09-02Development Plan – DR 08-09

Lead Agency:

City of Lompoc100 Civic Center Plaza

Lompoc, California 93438

Prepared by:

Impact Sciences, Inc.803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite A

Camarillo, California 93012

May 2010

City of Lompoc i Walmart Expansion Project Draft EIRDR 08-09/EIR 09-02 May 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1.0-1

2.0 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................2.0-1

3.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................................3.0-1

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................4.0-14.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................4.1-14.2 Noise ..........................................................................................................................................4.2-14.3 Transportation and Circulation..............................................................................................4.3-14.4 Urban Decay .............................................................................................................................4.4-14.5 Energy, Electricity, and Natural Gas.....................................................................................4.5-14.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................4.6-1

5.0 Alternatives.............................................................................................................................................5.0-1

6.0 Irreversible Environmental Changes...................................................................................................6.0-1

7.0 Growth Inducement...............................................................................................................................7.0-1

8.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant .....................................................................................................8.0-1

9.0 List of Individuals Involved in the EIR Preparation..........................................................................9.0-1

10.0 References and Individuals Consulted..............................................................................................10.0-1

Appendices

1.0 Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study, Responses to the NOP, and Scoping MaterialsNOP/Initial StudyResponses to the NOPScoping Materials

4.1 Air Quality Impact Analysis

4.2 Environmental Noise Impact Analysis

4.3 Final Traffic and Circulation Study

4.4 Urban Decay Study

4.5 Energy Conservation, Electricity, and Natural Gas Technical Study

4.6 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

8.0 Technical ReportsBiological Resources AssessmentSoils Engineering ReportFederal Aviation Administration Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation

City of Lompoc ii Walmart Expansion Project Draft EIRDR 08-09/EIR 09-02 May 2010

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3.0-1 Regional and Site Location....................................................................................................................3.0-33.0-2 Aerial of Project Site...............................................................................................................................3.0-43.0-3 Conceptual Site Plan ..............................................................................................................................3.0-73.0-4 Department Plan.....................................................................................................................................3.0-83.0-5 Conceptual Elevations .........................................................................................................................3.0-113.0-6 Preliminary Landscape Plan ...............................................................................................................3.0-163.0-7 Site Plan Indicating Signage................................................................................................................3.0-173.0-8 Signage Front Elevation.......................................................................................................................3.0-183.0-9 Signage Details......................................................................................................................................3.0-193.0-10 Phasing Plan..........................................................................................................................................3.0-204.2-1 Common Noise Levels...........................................................................................................................4.2-54.2-2 Noise Attenuation by Barriers..............................................................................................................4.2-84.2-3 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration ........................................................................................4.2-114.2-4 Noise Measurement Locations ...........................................................................................................4.2-124.2-5 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment ...........................................................................4.2-194.2-6 Lompoc Airport Future Noise Contours...........................................................................................4.2-224.3-1 Roadway Designation............................................................................................................................4.3-34.3-2 Existing Lane Geometry ........................................................................................................................4.3-44.3-3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................4.3-74.3-4 Existing Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................4.3-124.3-5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment........................................................................................4.3-214.3-6 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................................4.3-224.3-7 Existing PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes ....................................................................................4.3-254.3-8 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes...............................................................4.3-264.3-9 Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................................................4.3-294.3-10 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .....................................................................4.3-304.4-1 Lompoc Retail Trade Area ....................................................................................................................4.4-3

City of Lompoc iii Walmart Expansion Project Draft EIRDR 08-09/EIR 09-02 May 2010

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.0-1 Summary of Project-Specific Impacts ..................................................................................................2.0-63.0-1 Land Use Summary................................................................................................................................3.0-53.0-2 Walmart Building Square Footage Breakdown..................................................................................3.0-63.0-3 Preliminary Plant Material List ..........................................................................................................3.0-134.0-1 Cumulative Projects List........................................................................................................................4.0-24.1-1 Local Climate Conditions......................................................................................................................4.1-24.1-2 Six Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Community...............................................4.1-124.1-3 GHG Sources in California..................................................................................................................4.1-134.1-4 Comparison of Global Pre-Industrial and Current GHG Concentrations....................................4.1-154.1-5 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants (South Central Coast Air Basin –

Santa Barbara County).........................................................................................................................4.1-224.1-6 Ambient Air Quality Standards .........................................................................................................4.1-414.1-7 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations ....................................................................................................4.1-444.1-8 Estimated Project Construction Emissions .......................................................................................4.1-514.1-9 Estimated Project Operational Emissions .........................................................................................4.1-534.1-10 Proposed Project GHG Emissions......................................................................................................4.1-564.1-11 Summary of Project Design Features Resulting in GHG Emissions .............................................4.1-574.1-12 GHG Emissions Reductions from Project Design Features (PDFs)...............................................4.1-604.2-1 Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.................................................................................................4.2-24.2-2 Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation (dB(A)).....................................................................................4.2-64.2-3 Existing Daytime Noise Levels...........................................................................................................4.2-104.2-4 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off Site...........................................................................................4.2-144.2-5 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels ....................................................................................4.2-174.2-6 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................................4.2-184.2-7 Groundborne Vibration Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Uses..............................................................4.2-204.2-8 Future Roadway Noise Levels Off Site..............................................................................................4.2-214.2-9 Future Roadway Noise Levels Off Site With Project Delivery Trucks..........................................4.2-234.2-10 Cumulative Roadway Noise at Locations Off Site...........................................................................4.2-284.3-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria...................................................................................................4.3-64.3-2 Existing Levels of Service......................................................................................................................4.3-94.3-3 Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................4.3-154.3-4 Trip Type Breakdown..........................................................................................................................4.3-164.3-5 Weekend Project Trip Generation......................................................................................................4.3-164.3-6 Project Trip Distribution......................................................................................................................4.3-174.3-7 Existing Plus Project LOS –Peak Hour ..............................................................................................4.3-194.3-8 Existing Plus Project LOS – Saturday Peak Hour ............................................................................4.3-194.3-9 CMP LOS – PM Peak Hour .................................................................................................................4.3-204.3-10 Existing Plus Project Driveway LOS – PM Peak Hour....................................................................4.3-244.3-11 Cumulative Levels of Service .............................................................................................................4.3-284.3-12 Cumulative Plus Project LOS –Peak Hours ......................................................................................4.3-314.3-13 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour LOS with Improvements...............................................4.3-324.3-14 Project Fair Share Calculation – PM Peak Hour ...............................................................................4.3-32

City of Lompoc iv Walmart Expansion Project Draft EIRDR 08-09/EIR 09-02 May 2010

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Page

4.4-1 Distribution of Retail Sales by Category in Trade Area....................................................................4.4-44.4-2 Capture Rates of Trade Area Demand in Lompoc Retail Trade Area ............................................4.4-54.4-3 Existing Retail in Trade Area................................................................................................................4.4-74.4-4 Existing Retail in Downtown Lompoc ................................................................................................4.4-84.4-5 Potential Sales Impacts to Existing Supermarkets ...........................................................................4.4-104.4-6 Estimate of Supermarket Sales (1999–2007)......................................................................................4.4-124.4-7 Net Supportable Square Feet of Retail Space....................................................................................4.4-174.4-8 Planned/Pending Retail Projects ........................................................................................................4.4-184.5-1 Proposed Project Electricity Consumption.........................................................................................4.5-54.5-2 Proposed Project Natural Gas Consumption .....................................................................................4.5-65.0-1 Estimated Worst-Case Alternative 2 – Operational Emissions ........................................................5.0-45.0-2 Electricity Consumption........................................................................................................................5.0-75.0-3 Natural Gas Consumption....................................................................................................................5.0-95.0-4 Estimated Worst-Case Alternative 3 – Operational Emissions ......................................................5.0-115.0-5 Electricity Consumption......................................................................................................................5.0-145.0-6 Natural Gas Consumption..................................................................................................................5.0-155.0-7 Estimated Worst-Case Alternative 4 – Operational Emissions ......................................................5.0-175.0-8 Electricity Consumption......................................................................................................................5.0-195.0-9 Natural Gas Consumption..................................................................................................................5.0-218.0-1 Existing Project Water Consumption.................................................................................................8.0-258.0-2 Proposed Project Water Comsumption.............................................................................................8.0-25

City of Lompoc 1.0-1 Walmart Expansion Project Draft EIRDR 08-09/EIR 09-02 May 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

This introduction provides information on the environmental review process being conducted by the City

of Lompoc for the proposed Walmart Expansion Project, in conformance with the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This information is provided to assist the reader in understanding

the planning and regulatory context in which the proposed project is being reviewed.

PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

This draft environmental impact report (EIR) evaluates the proposed Walmart Expansion (proposed

project). The proposed project site is located at 701 West Central Avenue at the northeast corner of the

intersection of West Central Avenue and North O Street. The project site is approximately 12.03 acres in

size and consists of a single parcel (assessor parcel number [APN] of 93-450-36). The proposed project

includes the addition of approximately 41,433 net new square feet. The majority of this additional space

will be added along the northern and western portions of the existing Walmart store. One additional

loading/unloading ramp is proposed to support the additional square footage and façade improvements

are also proposed to enhance the aesthetic character of the Walmart store as viewed from West Central

Avenue. Interior renovations are also proposed, with the majority of these changes geared toward

improving the sustainability features of the store. The demolition of 188 square feet of building area and

5,024 square feet of existing garden center area is proposed to accommodate these renovations.

Development of the proposed project would require the following approvals by the City of Lompoc: a

Development Plan Review Permit (DR 08-09) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 09-02).

This draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. This EIR identifies and

discusses potential project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, which may occur should this

proposed project be implemented. The intent of this EIR is to (1) be an informational document that

serves to inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the potential environmental

impacts of a project, (2) identify possible ways to minimize or avoid any potential significant impacts

either through mitigation or the adoption of alternatives, and (3) disclose to the public required agency

approvals.

1.0 Introduction


The principal use of an EIR is to provide input and information to the comprehensive planning analysis.

Given the vital role of the EIR in this planning and decision-making process, it is important that the

information presented in the EIR be factual, adequate, and complete. The standards for adequacy of an

EIR, defined in Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines, are as follows:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers withinformation which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account ofenvironmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project neednot be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonablyfeasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR shouldsummarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not forperfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The City of Lompoc determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Walmart Expansion Project. As a

result, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) between August 12, 2009, and

September 14, 2009, for the required 30-day review period. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit early

comments from public agencies with expertise in subjects to be discussed in the draft EIR. The NOP and

written responses to the NOP are contained in Appendix 1.0 of this EIR. The issues that were identified

during the public comment period included the following:

Airport related noise, safety, and land use issues (refer to Appendix 1.0 , Appendix 8.0, and Section8.0 of this EIR where these issues are addressed);

Discovery or release of hazardous materials (refer to Appendix 1.0, Appendix 4.6, and Section 4.6 ofthis EIR where these issues are addressed); and

Traffic and circulation (refer to Section 4.2 of this EIR where these issues are addressed).

The City of Lompoc also held a public scoping meeting on August 26, 2009, for residents to comment on

the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This meeting was held in the City Council

Chambers at City Hall, 100 Civic Center Plaza, Lompoc, California. A presentation describing the project,

as well as topics that were anticipated to be analyzed in the EIR, was made and a public comment period

was conducted. Several residents provided comments at this meeting. The issues that were identified

during the public comment period included the following:

Social and economic impacts on surrounding businesses from the expansion of Walmart; such asphysical deterioration and business closures (refer to Section 4.4 of this EIR where these issues areaddressed)

Stormwater related issues including water quality and increased runoff to the Santa Ynez River fromthe expansion of the store (refer to Sections 3.0, 4.1, and 4.5 of this EIR where these issues areaddressed); and

1.0 Introduction


Sustainability issues do not offset environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the store(refer to Appendix 1.0 and Section 8.0 of this EIR where these issues are addressed.)

Topics requiring a detailed level of analysis evaluated in this draft EIR have been identified based upon

the responses to both the NOP and a review of the project by the City of Lompoc. The City determined

through the initial review process that impacts related to the following topics were potentially significant

and required a detailed level of analysis in this draft EIR:

Air Quality

Noise

Transportation and Circulation

Urban Decay

Energy, Electricity, and Natural Gas

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Other environmental issues were eliminated or “scoped out” from detailed review in this EIR during the

NOP process, as the impacts were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or

significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level. These environmental issues are

not discussed in detail within this draft EIR. For a complete discussion of the environmental issues that

were scoped out from this draft EIR (refer to Appendix 1.0 and Section 8.0, Effects Found Not to Be

Significant).

EIR REVIEW PROCESS

This draft EIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review period, as required by CEQA. During this

review period, written comments concerning the adequacy of the document may be submitted by all

interested public agencies and private parties to the City of Lompoc, Community Development

Department, 100 Civic Center Plaza, Lompoc, California 93438-8001, to the attention of Lucille Breese,

Planning Manager. After the 45-day public review period has ended, the Lead Agency will prepare

written responses to all comments received on the draft EIR. These responses will be incorporated into

the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be available for public review for at least 10 days prior to certification, in

accordance with City of Lompoc CEQA procedures. The Final EIR will be reviewed, considered, and shall

be certified prior to any actions by the City Planning Commission on the proposed project application.

FORMAT AND CONTENT OF EIR

As stated, a principal objective of CEQA is that the environmental review process be a public one. In

meeting this objective, the EIR must inform members of the general public, decision makers, and

technically oriented reviewers of the physical impacts associated with a proposed project. To this end,

specific features have been incorporated into this EIR to make it more understandable for non-technically

oriented reviewers, yet provide the technical information necessary for agency personnel.

1.0 Introduction


A description of the organization of this EIR and the content of each section is provided below to assist

the reader in using this EIR as a source of information about the proposed project. Sections of the draftEIR following this introduction are organized as follows:

Section 2.0, Executive Summary, includes a description of the proposed project, a description of project

alternatives, a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR, and a discussion of

areas of known controversy.

Section 3.0, Project Description, presents a detailed description of the proposed project as required by

the State CEQA Guidelines . Topics addressed in this section include the project objectives and the

characteristics of the project.

Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, contains analysis of each of the environmental topics

addressed in this EIR. Each topic is addressed in separate subsections as follows: existing conditions,project impacts, cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation.

Section 5.0, Alternatives, provides analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. As required by the

State CEQA Guidelines, a discussion of the reasons for selection of alternatives analyzed is provided, with

a comparative analysis of each alternative with the project.

Section 6.0, Irreversible Environmental Changes, summarizes the conclusions of Section 4.0 regarding

those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Section 7.0, Growth Inducement, discusses the ways in which the proposed project could remove an

impediment to growth, foster economic expansion or growth in the area, establish a precedent-setting

action, or represent isolated development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space.

Section 8.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant, discusses the environmental issues that were eliminated

or scoped out from detailed review in this EIR during the NOP process as the impacts were determinedto have no impact, less than significant impacts, or significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less

than significant level.

Section 9.0, List of Individuals Involved in the EIR Preparation, provides a list of persons involved in

the preparation of this EIR.

Section 10.0, References and Individuals Consulted, provides a list of all organizations and persons

contacted during preparation of the draft EIR and a list of all documents used as a basis of information

for the draft EIR.

Appendices to this EIR include the NOP and written responses, as well as selected technical reports and

data used during the preparation of the draft EIR.


2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This section summarizes the proposed project and alternatives assessed in the environmental impact report (EIR),

and also identifies the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and post-mitigation residual impacts associated

with the project and cumulative projects.

PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project site is in the City of Lompoc and the County of Santa Barbara, California. Regional

access to the site is provided by Highway 1 and Highway 246, which link the City to Highway 101. From

a local perspective, the project site is located at 701 West Central Avenue at the northeast corner of the

intersection of West Central Avenue and North O Street. A new wine facility and the Lompoc Airport are

situated near the northern boundary of the project site.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project site is 12.03 acres and consists of a single parcel (assessor parcel no. 93-450-36). The existing

General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial (GC) and the zoning designation is

Planned Commercial Development (PCD).

Access to the project site is provided by Central Avenue and O Street. Central Avenue provides one

signalized access driveway midway between O Street and L Street. O Street provides four access

driveways for the existing Walmart store. These include two access driveways for the Shopping Center,

one access driveway to the Tire and Lube Express facility, and one access driveway located at the

northern boundary of the project site for delivery trucks.

On-site land uses consist of the existing 104,453-square-foot Walmart store with an outdoor garden center

of approximately 8,768 square feet; 356,000 square feet of paved parking spaces, roads, and walkways;

5,200 square feet of landscaping; and 765 on-site parking spaces. Vacant land is located west and

northwest of the site. Immediately north of the project site is a new winery facility, for which construction

was completed in December 2009. Further north is the Lompoc Airport, which is approximately 325 feet

from the project site. To the east and adjacent to the project site is an existing retail commercial building.

A residential neighborhood is located to the south across Central Avenue approximately 75 feet from the

project site.

The proposed project includes the addition of approximately 41,433 net new square feet. The majority of

this additional space will be added along the northern and western portions of the existing Walmart

store. One additional loading/unloading ramp is proposed to support the additional square footage and

2.0 Executive Summary


façade improvements are also proposed to enhance the aesthetic character of the Walmart store as viewed

from West Central Avenue. Interior renovations are also proposed, with the majority of these changes

geared toward improving the sustainability features of the store. The demolition of 188 square feet of

building area and 5,024 square feet of existing garden center area is proposed to accommodate these

renovations.

The City of Lompoc requires projects located along Central Avenue and in the vicinity of Highway 1 to

undergo design review. Applications for design review must be filed with the Planning Division together

with a fee as fixed by resolution of the City. The design review process applies to the site plan, exterior

elevations, building design and materials, signage, landscaping, parking, alterations adjacent to public

roadways, grading and drainage, and other aspects of the project, as determined by the Planning

Division. Therefore, the discretionary approvals required for the project include the approval of a

Development Plan Review Permit (DR 08-09).

Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, for

additional details regarding existing site conditions and land uses in the vicinity of the project site.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the project

description in an EIR include “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project,” which

should include “the underlying purpose of the project.” The following are the project objectives for the

Walmart Expansion Project:

Maximize affordable grocery shopping options for residents of the City and the immediatesurrounding area.

Expand an existing retail facility to maximize employment opportunities for City residents.

Provide a significant tax revenue generator the flexibility to adapt its existing store to meet marketdemands through expansion in lieu of new ground-up construction.

Update an existing facility’s architectural design to improve upon the existing facade.

Design a project consistent with the City of Lompoc General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Create a pleasant and attractive shopping experience for City residents.

Perform interior renovation work as part of an expansion of an existing facility to incorporate avariety of sustainability features that would reduce the expanded building’s demand for energy andother resources.

Provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the City of Lompoc’s standards in order to ensure thatadequate on-site parking is provided for store customers and employees.



TOPICS OF KNOWN CONCERN

Topics requiring a detailed level of analysis evaluated in this Draft EIR have been identified based upon

the responses to both the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and a review of the project by the City of Lompoc.

The City determined through the initial review process that impacts related to the following topics were

potentially significant and required a detailed level of analysis in this Draft EIR:

Air Quality

Noise


Urban Decay


Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Other environmental issues were eliminated, or “scoped out,” from detailed review in this EIR during the

NOP process. as the impacts were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or

significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level. These environmental issues are

not discussed in detail within this Draft EIR. For a complete discussion of the environmental issues that

were scoped out from this Draft EIR, see Section 8.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant.

ALTERNATIVES

The range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only

those alternatives necessary to make a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that

would avoid or lessen any significant effects of the project (Section 15126.6(c)). Of those alternatives, the

EIR only need examine in detail the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain the basic

objectives of the project. When addressing feasibility, the State CEQA Guidelines states, “among the factors

that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability,

economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries, and

whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”

(Section 15126.6(f)(1)) The State CEQA Guidelines also specify that the alternatives discussion should not

be remote or speculative, and need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the

proposed project.

Therefore, based on the State CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the

range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of detail of analysis that should be provided

for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project;

(2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the impacts associated with the project; (3) the ability of

the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. Each of



these factors will be unique for each project. The following alternatives were examined in this EIR in

accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to be evaluated by Section 15126.6 (2) of the State

CEQA Guidelines. The analysis must examine the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present

condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project

were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community

services.

Alternative 2: 30,000-Square-Foot Expansion with No Grocery

The alternative would include the development of the project at a reduction of 11,433 square feet (sf).

Under this alternative, the project would include the development of 30,000 sf of space consisting of

general merchandise sales area, a stockroom/receiving area, an ancillary area, and an outdoor garden

center. The grocery sales area and grocery storage and ancillary areas would not be developed.

Development of this alternative would occur on the same 12.03-acre site as the proposed project.

Alternative 3: 20,000-Square-Foot Expansion, No Grocery, and Tire and Lube Express

The alternative would include the development of the project at a reduction of 21,433 sf. Under this

alternative, the project would include the development of 20,000 sf of space consisting of general

merchandise sales area, a stockroom/receiving area, an ancillary area, an outdoor garden center, and the

Tire and Lube Express. The grocery sales area and grocery storage and ancillary areas would not be

developed. Development of this alternative would occur on the same 12.03-acre site as the proposed

project.

Alternative 4: 10,000-Square-Foot Expansion with Only Grocery

The alternative would include the development of the project at a reduction of 31,433 sf. Under this

alternative, the project would include the development of 10,000 sf of space consisting of a grocery sales

area, a grocery storage area, and ancillary grocery uses. The general merchandise sales area, stockroom

and receiving area, the ancillary area, and the outdoor garden center would not be developed.




SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Table 2.0-1, Summary of Project-Specific Impacts, presents a summary of project impacts and identifies

three types of potential impacts, described as follows:

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts are impacts that cannot be avoided or lessened byimplementing mitigation measures or alternatives. Specific economic, social, technical, or otherconsiderations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Ifthe City of Lompoc decides to approve the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must beadopted by the City of Lompoc for any identified significant and unavoidable impacts, as required byState CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b).

Significant Impacts are impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. StateCEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), requires that “findings” be made indicating that changes oralterations have been required in the project to avoid or substantially lessen these impacts.

Less than Significant Impacts are impacts that have been found not to significantly impact theenvironment even without the implementation of mitigation measures.

This EIR assesses each significant impact that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

In accordance with CEQA, a summary of the project’s significant impacts is provided in Table 2.0-1,

Summary of Project-Specific Impacts (presented on the following page). Also provided in the table is a

list of the mitigation measures identified to address the significant impacts, as well as a determination of

the level of significance of the impact after implementation of the mitigation measures.


City of Lompoc 2.0-6 Wal-Mart Expansion Project Draft EIRDR 08-09/EIR 09/02 May 2010

Table 2.0-1Summary of Project-Specific Impacts

Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactAir QualityConstruction ImpactsThe project site is relatively small, and the construction phase wouldinvolve limited demolition and grading using only a few units of dieselequipment. The overall period to construct buildings would only lastapproximately 12 months. The annual emissions due to construction of theproposed project would be well under the Santa Barbara County AirPollution Control District (SBCAPCD) guidelines. These estimates arebased on the expected location, size, and development of the proposedproject, and include measures consistent with the City’s dust abatementprogram.

PDF 4.1-1 A dust abatement program shall beprepared and implemented during allconstruction activities occurring on the projectsite. The following measures shall be included inthe dust abatement program:

Sprinkle all construction areas with water(recycled when possible) at least twice aday, during excavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitivedust emissions;

Construction sites shall be watered and allequipment cleaned in the morning andevening to reduce particulate and dustemissions;

Cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similarmaterials, or surround them withwindbreaks;

Cover trucks hauling dirt and debris toreduce spillage onto paved surfaces or haveadequate freeboard to prevent spillage;

Post signs that limit vehicle speeds onunpaved roads and over disturbed soils to10 miles per hour during construction;



Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactAir Quality (continued)

PDF 4.1-1 (cont’d)

Soil binders shall be spread on constructionsites, on unpaved roads, and on parkingareas; ground cover shall be re-establishedthrough seeding and watering; and

Sweep up dirt and debris spilled ontopaved surfaces immediately to reducere-suspension of dust through vehiclemovement over those surfaces.

Less than Significant

Operational Impacts

Project SiteOperational emissions generated by the project site after buildout wouldnot exceed the SBCAPCD thresholds for all sources, both stationary andmobile, generated by the proposed project. In addition, the proposedproject would not exceed the new vehicular trips threshold of 25 poundsper day for reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

Toxic Air Contaminants

The expansion of store space is anticipated to require daily truck trips up to2 additional heavy-duty trucks and up to 3 medium-duty trucks that mayemit diesel particulate matter (DPM). Given the limited number ofadditional truck trips, the health impacts from DPM emissions associatedwith these additional trucks are not anticipated to be significant.

Stationary equipment or processes that emit a substantial amount of toxicair contaminants (TACs) are required to be permitted by the SBCAPCD. Nosuch equipment or processes are proposed for the proposed project.Therefore, the proposed project would not be subjected to increased healthimpacts relative to the background levels.

No mitigation measures are required. Less than Significant



Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactAir Quality (continued)Objectionable Odors

Typical sources of objectionable odor include landfills, rendering plants,chemical plants, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, andrefineries. The proposed project does not include these land uses and is notlocated adjacent to or in proximity to any of these uses.

Project Consistency with CAP

The proposed project would not result in a direct population increase, asthe proposed project does not contain any residential units. Although theproposed project would increase employment due to the expansion of theWalmart store, this employment can be filled by current City of Lompocresidents. Any indirect increase in population growth would only be afraction of the growth forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would alsobe consistent with the 2007 CAP (Clean Air Plan) emission projections.

Cumulative ImpactsA project that does not exceed the SBCAPCD project-specific thresholdsand that is consistent with the CAP is considered to have a less thansignificant cumulative air quality impact. As stated previously, the netemissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed theSBCAPCD project-specific thresholds and the project is consistent with the2007 CAP.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactAir Quality (continued)Global Climate Change

Increase or Reduce GHGsBy incorporating the project design features that have been recommendedfor adoption as PDF 4.1-2 to PDF 4.1-21, the proposed project would notsignificantly increase the consumption of energy resources that contributeto greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would not result in a significantcumulative impact to global climate change. The project design featureswould reduce emissions by approximately 144 MTCO2e (million tons ofCO2 equivalent), or approximately 7.3 percent. In addition, the proposedproject would comply with all regulations adopted pursuant to AssemblyBill (AB) 32 or any other applicable law, which likely would result infurther reductions.

Of note, the vast majority of emissions associated with the proposed projectare mobile source emissions. The project applicant has little to no controlover mobile source fuel and engine efficiencies, or the travel habits offuture patrons of the proposed project. Therefore, the project applicant isunable to appreciably reduce the GHG emissions resulting from thatsource.

PDF 4.1-2 The Walmart building shall beequipped with an energy management systemthat is monitored and controlled from the HomeOffice in Bentonville, Arkansas, in order toenable Walmart to monitor energy usage,analyze refrigeration temperatures, observeHVAC and lighting performance, and adjustlighting, temperature, and/or refrigeration setpoints 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

PDF 4.1-3 The Walmart building shall include:

Occupancy sensors shall be installed in non-sales floor areas. These sensors detectactivity in a room and automatically turn offthe lights when the space is unoccupied;and

All lighting shall utilize T-8 fluorescentlamps and electronic ballasts in order toreduce the energy load by approximately 15to 20 percent; and

Non-hazardous, “low-mercury” lamps shallbe used, and recycled (as appropriate andnecessary).

PDF 4.1-4 The proposed project shall install lightcolored “cool” roofs in order to lower the“cooling” load by about 8 percent.

PDF 4.1-5 The project applicant shall provideinformation on energy reduction to employees.



Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactAir Quality (continued)Emissions Exceed Threshold Determined by Lead Agency

The proposed project would not hinder achievement of the AB 32 reductionmandate or the Executive Order S-3-05 reduction goal.

Reduce/Mitigate Incremental GHG Contribution

The project would comply with existing law, including any applicableregulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional orlocal plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

PDF 4.1-6 The Walmart building shall use“super” high efficiency packaged HVAC unitsrated at an Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) ofapproximately 12.1 (for 20-ton units) to 14.3 (for3-ton units), which is approximately 4 to17 percent more efficient than required byCalifornia Title 24. In addition, the Walmartbuilding shall include an activedehumidification, dedicated outdoor air systemthat allows Walmart to operate the store at ahigher temperature, use less energy, and allowthe refrigeration system to operate moreefficiently.

PDF 4.1-7 Freezer doors shall have a film thatcombats condensation and requires no energy.

PDF 4.1-8 The project shall install light emittingdiodes (LEDs) for all externally illuminatedbuilding signage and in all low temperaturerefrigerated cases, which are over 70 percentmore energy-efficient than fluorescentillumination. With lamp life ranging to 100,000hours, using LEDs provides an extended lifespan of 12 to 20-plus years, and significantlyreduces the need to manufacture and dispose offluorescent lamps.

PDF 4.1-9 The project shall use poured concretewith up to 25 percent fly ash in the exteriorconcrete mixes, and up to 40 percent of the mixas a combination of fly ash and groundgranulated blast furnace slag.




PDF 4.1-10 The project shall use combined heatand power in appropriate applications.

PDF 4.1-11 The project shall use water-efficientlandscaping in the parking areas.

PDF 4.1-12 All new and existing restroom sinksshall include sensor-activated low-flow faucets.

PDF 4.1-13 The project shall use R404a for therefrigeration equipment and R410a refrigerantfor air conditions.

PDF 4.1-14 The project shall restrict wateringmethods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply waterto non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.

PDF 4.1-15 The project shall restrict the use ofwater for cleaning outdoor surfaces andvehicles.

PDF 4.1-16 The project applicant shall provideeducation about water conservation andavailable programs and incentives.

PDF 4.1-17 The project shall: (1) reuse and recycleconstruction and demolition waste (including,but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete,lumber, metal, and cardboard); (2) useapproximately 96 percent recycled steel inbuilding construction; and (3) provide interiorand exterior storage areas for recyclables andgreen waste and adequate recycling containerslocated in public areas.

PDF 4.1-18 The project applicant shall provideeducation and publicity about reducing wasteand available recycling services.




PDF 4.1-19 The project shall create travel routesthat ensure that destinations may be reachedconveniently by public transportation, bicyclingor walking.

PDF 4.1-20 The project shall provide adequatebicycle parking near building entrances topromote cyclist safety, security, andconvenience.

PDF 4.1-21 The project shall limit idling time forcommercial vehicles, including delivery andconstruction vehicles.


Noise

Construction ImpactsNoise

Construction noise levels at the property line of the home located at thesouthwest corner of O Street and Central Avenue (approximately 690 feetfrom the proposed construction area) could reach up to approximately66 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).Based on the measurement conducted in front of this home, the existingdaytime noise level was measured at approximately 64 dB(A) Leq. Thus, theconstruction noise generated at the project site would also not result in anincrease of 5 dB(A) at this receptor. Therefore, an increase in noise levelsabove 5 dB(A) would not occur at these single-family residences that arelocated nearest to the project site.

Vibration

The single-family residences south of the project site could be exposed togroundborne vibration levels of approximately 46.3 VdB (vibrationdecibels) with the simultaneous use of multiple construction equipmentduring demolition of portions of the existing building. Therefore, theseresidential uses would not be exposed to vibration levels that approach theFederal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 72 VdB for residentialuses.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactNoise (continued)

Operational Noise

On-siteThe project site is located beyond the anticipated location of the60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour for the year 2015.The noise levels at the Walmart expansion site would be well below theCity’s 65 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise standard for commercial uses andwould not expose persons to or the generation of noise levels greater thanexisting standards.

Off-site Vehicular Noise

The proposed project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of0.5 dB(A) CNEL, which would be imperceptible to most people and wouldnot exceed the identified thresholds of significance. When additionaldelivery truck trips are added to the project-generated traffic, the increasein traffic noise levels would not exceed the identified thresholds ofsignificance. Since the noise levels on Central Avenue would not exceed theidentified threshold, the noise levels on other roadway segments that arelocated farther away from the project site would also not exceed theidentified threshold.


Operational Noise – Periodic

Loading Dock/Solid Waste Collection NoiseWith an assumed building height of 30 feet, noise from the proposedloading docks and trash collection facilities would be reduced by at least17.5 dB(A). As such, noise levels generated in this area may result in noiselevels of up to 33.0 dB(A) Leq at the nearest residents of the single-familyresidential uses to the south. Existing noise levels at the homes alongCentral Avenue east of O Street are approximately 60.1 dB(A) CNEL.





HVACThe 24-hour CNEL noise levels are about 6.7 dB(A) greater than 24-hour Leq

measurements, the HVAC equipment associated with the commercial usescould generate noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dB(A) CNEL at50 feet when the equipment is operating continuously over a 24-hourperiod. The new wine-making facility would not be exposed noise levelsthat exceed the City’s 75 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise standard formanufacturing uses, and the single-family residences locatedapproximately 650 feet to the south of the nearest portion of the expansionarea would be subject to noise levels of less than 45 dB(A) CNEL. Based onthis information, noise levels associated with activities at the project sitewould not exceed the 60 dB(A) CNEL standard for residential uses.

Parking Noise

For the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis, it is assumed thatthis hourly noise level from the on-site parking lot would occur for24 hours, which in turn would result in a noise level of approximately58 dB(A) CNEL. This noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior noisethresholds for residential uses, which is 60 dB(A) CNEL.

The noise level generated by the proposed loading docks would beapproximately 50 dB(A) Leq at these receptors.The exterior-to-interior noisereduction for homes is generally 25 dB(A) with closed windows, the noisegenerated by loading activities at the project site would be further reducedto 20 dB(A) Leq. Thus, the noise generated from the project loading wouldnot be high enough to disrupt the off-site resident’s ability to sleep duringthe nighttime.

A maximum noise level of 63 dB(A) would result at the noise-sensitivereceptors under the conditions where noise is generated by squealing tiresat the parking lot. Given that these noise-sensitive receptors are locatedbehind a noise wall and the exterior-to-interior noise attenuation providedby closed windows at these receptors, the interior noise level at thesereceptors would be approximately 33 dB(A), which would not exceed45 dB(A).




Cumulative Impacts

Noise and VibrationDevelopment of the proposed project in conjunction with other newdevelopment projects would result in an increase in construction-relatedand traffic-related noise in this already urbanized area of the City ofLompoc. However, each of the related projects would be subject to theLompoc Municipal Code, which limits the hours of allowable constructionactivities. Conformance with these City policies would reduce construction-related noise for the related projects.

Operational NoiseNone of the study roadway segments in the project vicinity wouldexperience a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levelsresulting from future ambient growth with the proposed project.


Traffic and Circulation

ConstructionIn order to minimize potential conflicts between construction activity andthrough traffic, a construction traffic control plan would be developed foruse during construction activity.

PDF 4.3-1 The contractor shall conduct operationsso as to cause the minimum obstruction andinconvenience to traffic and to residencesadjacent to the work. No greater quantity ofwork shall be under construction at any onetime than can be properly conducted with dueregard for the rights of the public.

PDF 4.3-2 Convenient access to driveways,houses, and buildings along the line of workshall be maintained.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactTraffic and Circulation (continued)

PDF 4.3-3 Streets shall not be closed to trafficwithout approval of the City Engineer, and thenonly for as short a period as possible to completethe work. All closed streets shall be barricadedat all intersecting streets with Type IIIbarricades, which shall be illuminated at nightby a flashing device.

PDF 4.3-4 Safe, adequate pedestrian access to allresidences, places of business, and otherestablishments affected by the work shall beprovided and maintained by the contractor at alltimes.

PDF 4.3-5 The contractor shall provide safe,adequate crossings for pedestrians at each streetintersection, cross street, and pedestriancrossing.

PDF 4.3-6 The contractor shall expedite thepassage of any necessary traffic around thework.

PDF 4.3-7 The contractor shall furnish, install andmaintain signs, detours, lights, flares, andbarricades, and shall furnish flagmen and otherfacilities for the convenience and direction ofpublic traffic.




PDF 4.3-8 Spillage resulting from hauling orditching operations along or across any publictraveled way shall be removed daily at thecontractor's expense. Any spoils piles, beddinggravel, base material etc., shall be placed as farout of the traveled way as possible and removedwithin 24 hours. No material or equipment shallbe stored where it will interfere with the freeand safe passage of public traffic. The contractorshall remove all equipment and otherobstructions from that portion of the roadwayopen for use by public traffic at the end of eachday's work and at other times when constructionoperations are suspended for any reason.

PDF 4.3-9 The contractor shall promptly restorenormal facilities for the convenience of access bythe public including restoration of sidewalks,driveways, and similar types of access, and theprompt removal of excess materials from streetsand parkways when a reasonable portion of thework in any location has been completed.




OperationalAll of the study-area intersections would continue to operate at Level ofService (LOS) C or better under existing plus project conditions. Theseservice levels meet the City's LOS C performance standard. The projectwould not significantly impact the operation of the area intersectionsduring either the AM or PM peak hour periods.

Weekend AnalysisThe intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better under existingconditions plus the proposed project conditions. The O Street/CentralAvenue intersection operates at LOS B during the Saturday peak periodand LOS C during the weekday peak period. Given these findings, it can beconcluded that the Saturday peak hour levels of service at the other study-area intersections are the same or better than on weekdays.


CMP AnalysisThe H Street/Central Avenue intersection would operate in the LOS Drange during the PM peak period with only cumulative conditions andcumulative plus proposed project conditions. The proposed project wouldadd 73 peak hour trips to the intersection, which exceeds the CongestionManagement Plan (CMP) threshold of 20 added trips for intersectionsoperating in the LOS D range.


Air Traffic PatternsThe proposed project would not exceed the maximum height allowedunder the PCD zone. In addition, this land use is allowed under theexisting Lompoc Airport Master Plan (LAMP). Furthermore, the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the proposed projectwould not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to airnavigation.


Site Access and CirculationThe driveways are forecast to operate at LOS A and LOS B during the PMpeak hour period under existing plus proposed project conditions.





Emergency AccessThe proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Ateach of the project driveways, one lane inbound and one lane outboundwould provide sufficient room for the project vehicles, such as single-unittrucks to maneuver in and out of the driveways.


ParkingThe parking calculations prepared for the proposed project show that aminimum of 728 spaces would be provided for the expanded Walmartstore, which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 605 spaces. It isnoted that the Zoning Ordinance requirement for the project assuming a45,000-square-foot addition would be 619 spaces. This requirement wouldalso be satisfied with the proposed parking supply of 728 spaces.

The parking calculations for the entire shopping center show that a total of1,280 parking spaces would be provided. This ratio equates to 4.5 spacesper 1,000 sf assuming the 41,433-sf expansion, which exceeds the 4.0 spacesper 1,000 sf required by the zoning ordinance.


Alternative Transportation ModesSince the proposed project is an expansion of the existing Walmartbuilding, the shopping center in which the project is located would haveeasy access to the existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity, therebyproviding potential bicycle use as a viable transportation mode for a goodportion of the local trips.

Since the proposed project would be an expansion of the existing Walmartstore the existing bus route (City of Lompoc Transit [COLT] Route 2-2A) isexpected to be utilized by the project.





Cumulative ImpactsData indicates that most of the study-area intersections are forecast tooperate at LOS C or better with cumulative plus the proposed project trafficvolumes. The H Street/Central Avenue intersection is forecast to operate atLOS D under cumulative and cumulative plus the proposed projectconditions, exceeding the City's LOS C operating standard.

MM 4.3-1 The proposed project shall contributeit’s fair share contribution to the City’simprovement plan for the H Street/CentralAvenue intersection. The City identifiedimprovements for the H Street/Central Avenueintersection include the installation of dual left-turn lanes on the northbound and southboundapproaches at the intersection.

The proposed project’s fair share contributionshall be 13.9 percent of the total cost of theintersection improvement in current dollars.Payment of fees shall occur prior to issuance ofbuilding permits.


Urban Decay

Project Grocery ComponentThe development of the proposed project could potentially cause one of theexisting supermarkets in Lompoc to close, given that the combined salesvolumes of the four existing supermarkets would fall 23.5 percent from theexisting level, and 29.4 percent from the pre–Fresh & Easy level, with theexpansion of the proposed project in 2011. Based on this projected salesimpact and an assumed sales-per-square-foot support requirement of $473,based on the national median, the trade area would be overbuilt byapproximately 59,000 sf of supermarket space in 2011. By 2020, the Citywould still be overbuilt by approximately 50,400 sf. Since the $473 persquare foot and $418 per square foot factors reflect the median sales figures,by definition half of all supermarkets are operating below these levels.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactUrban Decay (continued)

Project GAFO ComponentPotential net demand for new general merchandise, apparel, furniture, andother/specialty (GAFO) space is projected to grow to approximately41,900 sf by 2011, 50,700 sf by 2015, and to 61,200 sf by 2020 within thetrade area. As indicated above, the proposed project would result in a netincrease of 9,312 square feet of GAFO retail space which would absorbapproximately 23 percent of the demand for new GAFO space. Based onthese findings, it is unlikely that the GAFO retail component of theexpansion area would result in economic impacts to existing stores in thetrade area, and it is therefore unlikely that any existing retail stores will beforced to close due to the project.

Overall, the expansion is too small to have a tangible effect on Lompoc’sphysical landscape.


Urban Decay

While the closure of a business is clearly a severe impact to the owners andemployees of that business, within the context of CEQA it is onlysignificant if it results in sustained vacancies which in turn result indeterioration of the physical condition of the vacant building(s), therebyaffecting the environment. For the reasons discussed below, propertyowners would have sufficient economic incentives to maintain theseproperties based on the potential for some type of retail reuse.


Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to the market are based on all known pending retailprojects (including the proposed project) in the trade area. There are notexpected to be any significant cumulative impacts resulting from thedevelopment of the commercial pad building at the Palm Square shoppingcenter or the mini market at 516 North I Street. Although the potentialtenant for the pad building is unknown, residual retail demand would bemore than sufficient to support retail use of this space. In addition, the minimarket currently under construction is only 700 sf and, based on itsrelatively small size, is expected to have a very limited impact in thegrocery category.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactEnergy, Electric, and Natural Gas

Project Energy RequirementsThe proposed project would incorporate a variety of sustainability featuresthat would reduce its demand for resources, use non-toxic materials, andpromote waste reduction.

ElectricityThe proposed project would expand a net total of 38,050 sf. The net totalincrease would consume 561,418 kilowatt hours (kWH) per year (or aconsumption rate of 0.064 megawatts).

Natural GasThe proposed project’s net total increase would consume 120,156 cubic feet(cf) of natural gas per month (or 4,005.2 cf per day).


Local/Regional Energy Supplies – Electricity

ElectricityThe proposed project would consume electricity at a rate of approximately64 megawatts (without incorporating project design features). The currentavailable supply is adequate to accommodate the needs of the proposedproject.

Natural GasThe proposed project is anticipated to consume approximately 120,156cubic feet per square foot per month (cf/sf/mo), or 4,005.2 cf of natural gasper day, over existing conditions. The daily consumption of natural gasassociated with the proposed project would be approximately0.0001 percent of Southern California Gas Company deliveries.


Effects on Peak/Base Period Energy Demands

The project would incorporate sustainability features that would limitenergy usage based on occupancy of the store.


Compliance with Energy StandardsThe proposed project would comply, and in many cases exceed, Title 24energy conservation standards for insulation, glazing, lighting, shading,and water- and space-heating systems in all new construction.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactEnergy, Electric, and Natural Gas (continued)

Transportation Energy UseTrucks making deliveries to the project site as well as visitors driving to thesite in their personal vehicles would be the form of transportation energyuse. The proposed project would be an expansion of an existing Walmartstore within an urban area. Existing customers who visit the store wouldcontinue after the store is expanded. Further, COLT provides public transitservice within the City of Lompoc, which would provide another means forarea residents to visit the site.


Cumulative Impacts

Electricity/Natural GasThe cumulative projects must also abide by the same statutes, regulations,and programs that mandate or encourage energy conservation. Utilityproviders are also required to plan for necessary upgrades and expansionsto their systems to ensure that adequate service will be provided for otherprojects and there is no evidence to suggest that the City (electricity) andSouthern California Gas Company (natural gas) will not be able topurchase the necessary electricity or provide natural gas service.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Routine Transport, Use, or DisposalThe City of Lompoc and Santa Barbara County currently requires that anannual inventory of hazardous materials in use on site and a businessemergency plan be submitted for an annual review, as required by Chapter6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Facilities storing materialsthat are “acutely” hazardous and in excess of the quantities in CCR, Title19, must submit a more comprehensive risk management plan, whichincludes off-site consequences analysis, maintenance, training programs,and an executive summary. These requirements, which would bemandated per state and federal law, are already complied with by Walmartfor the existing store.




Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual ImpactEnergy, Electric, and Natural Gas (continued)Reasonably Foreseeable Upset/Accident ConditionsThe Phase I ESA indicated that if redevelopment of the site is proposed, thecontractor should be made aware of the possible presence of hydrocarbon-impacted soil beneath the site and petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil, ifencountered, should be removed. The proposed project would eliminatethe Tire and Lube Express, and there is a possibility that undetected soilcontamination could be present within this area. In addition, there is alsothe potential that undocumented contamination could be within any of theother project development areas.

MM 4.6-1 While not known to occur on site, ifcontaminated soil and/or groundwater isencountered during the removal of on-sitedebris or during excavation and/or grading bothon and off site, the construction contractors shallstop work and immediately inform the City ofLompoc. An environmental hazardous materialsprofessional shall be contracted to conduct anon-site assessment. If the materials aredetermined to pose a risk to the public orconstruction workers, the constructioncontractor shall prepare and submit aremediation plan to the appropriate agency andcomply with all federal, state, and local laws.Soil remediation methods could includeexcavation and on-site treatment, excavationand off-site treatment or disposal, and/ortreatment without excavation. Remediationalternatives for cleanup of contaminatedgroundwater could include in-situ treatment,extraction and on-site treatment, or extractionand off-site treatment and/or disposal.Construction plans shall be modified orpostponed to ensure construction will not inhibitremediation activities and will not expose thepublic or construction workers to hazardousconditions.

MM 4.6-2 All residual hazardous materials andcontaminated construction material removedprior to and during demolition of the Tire &Lube Express shall be properly disposed ofaccording to state and federal law.





Hazardous Conditions within 0.25-mile of a SchoolThere is one school, Olive Grove Charter School, located approximately2,100 feet to the southeast (0.4 mile) of the project site. On-site hazardousmaterial and chemicals are stored in accordance with accepted practices.


Hazardous Materials SiteThe proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(Cortese List).

No mitigation measures are required. No Impact

Safety Hazard Public AirportThe proposed expansion/structure does not exceed obstruction standardsand would not be a hazard to air navigation. No aircraft safety hazardimpacts would occur with the implementation of the project. Any futureconstruction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or theaddition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.

To assess impacts to military aircraft from Vandenberg Air Force Base inthe project area, a California military land use compatibility analysis reportwas generated. The report concluded that the project site does not intersectwith any military bases, special use airspaces, or low-level flight paths.


Safety Hazard Private AirportThe project site is not located near a private airstrip. Therefore,implementation of the proposed project would not result in any safetyhazards cumulative to private airstrips.


Emergency Response PlanImplementation of the project would neither result in a reduction of thenumber of lanes along these roadway segments in the area nor result in theplacement of an impediment to the flow of traffic such as medians. In theevent of an emergency, all lanes would be opened to allow traffic to flow inone direction; traffic would be controlled by appropriate agencies, such asthe Lompoc Police Department. During the construction activities, theproject would not include short-term single-lane closures along theseroutes.





Wildland FiresThe project site is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by residentialand commercial uses. There are no wildlands adjacent to the site and theproject site is designated as a low-hazard area for wildland fires in theGeneral Plan.


Cumulative ImpactsCumulative projects (if applicable) would be required to comply withfederal, state, and local hazardous materials guidelines (e.g., an annualinventory of hazardous materials). Walmart already prepares an annualinventory and business emergency plan and would continue to do so afterthe implementation of the project

Future development would adhere to applicable federal, state, or locallaws, and regulations that govern underground storage tanks, as well asthe disposal and clean up of contaminants.

Development of cumulative projects would comply with applicable lawsand regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes, and that risk withidentified hazardous material sites would be eliminated or reducedthrough proper handling, disposal practice, and/or clean up procedures.Development would be denied by the City if adequate clean-up ortreatment is not feasible.

Cumulative projects may be located on or near the Lompoc Airport andVandenberg AFB and within or near aircraft flight areas. Development ofthese cumulative projects would comply with applicable FAA laws andregulations pertaining to development within flight zones.

Future development would go through CEQA review of potential impactson adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, and would berequired to implement measures to mitigate potential impacts.



3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the project description is to describe the project in a way that will be meaningful to the public,

reviewing agencies, and decision makers. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section

15124 requires that a complete project description contain the following information: (1) the precise location and

boundaries of the proposed project shown on a detailed map, including a regional map; (2) a statement of objectives

sought by the proposed project (the underlying purpose should be included); (3) a general description of the project’s

technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of

the environmental impact report (EIR), including a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their

decision making, a list of the permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related

environmental review and consultation requirements from federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies.

The project description is the starting point for all environmental analysis required by CEQA. Section 15146 of the

State CEQA Guidelines states that the level of detail in an EIR should correspond to the level of specificity defined

in the project description. This project description section serves as the basis for the environmental analysis

contained in this EIR. In this case, the project proposes the expansion of the existing Walmart store. This EIR refers

to this proposed development as the proposed project, the project site, or theWalmart Expansion Project.

LEAD AGENCY

City of LompocCommunity Development Department100 Civic Center PlazaLompoc, California 93438Attention: Lucille T. Breese, AICP, Planning Manager

PROJECT APPLICANT

Walmart Real Estate Business Trust2001 S.E. 10th StreetBentonville, Arkansas 72716Attention: John Rogge

PROJECT LOCATION ANDSITE CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 3.0-1, Regional and Site Location, illustrates the location of the proposed project site within the

City of Lompoc, and the County of Santa Barbara, California. Regional access to the site is provided by

Highway 1 and Highway 246, which link the City to Highway 101. From a local perspective, the project

site is located at 701 West Central Avenue at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Central

3.0 Project Description


Avenue and North O Street. The project site is 12.03 acres and consists of a single parcel (Assessor Parcel

No. [APN] 93-450-36). The existing General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial

(GC) and the zoning designation is Planned Commercial Development (PCD).




one access driveway to the Tire and Lube Express Facility, and one access driveway located at the

northern boundary of the project site for delivery trucks.

Figure 3.0-2, Aerial of Project Site, illustrates the existing land uses on and surrounding the project site.

On-site land uses consist of the existing 104,453-square-foot Walmart store with an outdoor garden center

of approximately 8,768 square feet; 365,000 square feet of paved parking spaces, roads, and walkways;

5,200 square feet of landscaping; and 765 on-site parking spaces. Vacant land is located west and

northwest of the site. Immediately north of the project site is a newwinery facility, for which construction

was completed in December 2009. Further north is the Lompoc Airport, which is approximately 325 feet

from the project site. To the east and adjacent to the project site is an existing retail commercial building.

A residential neighborhood is located to the south across Central Avenue approximately 75 feet from the

project site.

STATEMENT OF PROJECTOBJECTIVES

Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the project description in an EIR include “a

statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project,” which should include “the underlying

purpose of the project.” The following are the project objectives for the Walmart ExpansionProject:

� Maximize affordable grocery shopping options for residents of the City and the immediatesurrounding area.

� Expand an existing retail facility to maximize employment opportunities for City residents.

� Provide a significant tax revenue generator the flexibility to adapt its existing store to meet marketdemands through expansion in lieu of new ground-up construction.

� Update an existing facility’s architectural design to improve upon the existing façade.

LompocFederal

Penitentiary

MISSIONHILLS

VANDENBERGVILLAGE

notruB

aseM

.dvl

B

ailamsaC-copmoL

daoR

MESAOAKS

daoRamisiruP

daoRedar

GsirraH

daoRrekcu

RatnaS

zenY reviR

Central Ave.

North Ave.

College Ave.

.evAnaecO

Olive Ave.

.evA

eladar olF

.evA

yeliaB

.tS

O

.tS

H

.tS

A

.tS

ht7

daoR

asoR

atna

S

daoR

.tS

V

.evA

eg geL

.evA

ssalguoD

.evAfflo

WeD

aicuLatnaS

.dR.nyC

246

1

1

1

246

SANTA BARBARACOUNTY

SantaYnezRiver

notlleuB

.dR

copmoL

246

1

grebnednaV

esaBecroFriA

San

Miguelito

101

1541011

101

1

1

246 246

135

VANDENBERG

AIR FORCE

LOMPOC

BASE

BUELLTONSOLVANG

GOLETA BARBARASANTA

CACHUMALAKE

YNEZSANTA

LOS OLIVOS

MARIASANTA

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Pa c i f i c O c e a n

ProjectSite

Regional and Site Location

FIGURE 3.0-1

651-010•08/09

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – June 2009

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

1.0 0.5 0 2

n

City Limits BoundaryLegend:

Aerial of Project Site

FIGURE 3.0-2

651-010•08/09

SOURCE: Google Earth - 2009; Impact Sciences, Inc. - June 2009

NOT TO SCALEn

Legend:Project Boundary



� Design a project consistent with the City of Lompoc General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

� Create a pleasant and attractive shopping experience for City residents.

� Perform interior renovation work as part of an expansion of an existing facility to incorporate avariety of sustainability features that would reduce the expanded building’s demand for energy andother resources.

� Provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the City of Lompoc’s standards in order to ensure thatadequate on-site parking is provided for store customers and employees.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

A conceptual or general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental

characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities, is

provided below in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(c).

Site Plan

Figure 3.0-3, Conceptual Site Plan, provides a conceptual layout of the proposed project expansion areas,

and Table 3.0-1, Land Use Summary, identifies the difference in the existing and proposed square

footage on the project site. The proposed project includes the addition of approximately 41,433 net new

square feet. The majority of this additional space will be added along the northern and western portions

of the existing Walmart store. One additional loading/unloading ramp is proposed to support the

additional square footage and façade improvements are also proposed to enhance the aesthetic character

of the Walmart store as viewed from West Central Avenue. Interior renovations are also proposed, with

the majority of these changes geared toward improving the sustainability features of the store. The

demolition of 188 square feet of building area and 5,024 square feet of existing garden center area is

proposed to accommodate these renovations.

Figure 3.0-4, Department Plan, is a conceptual illustration of the interior location of the different sales

areas within the expanded Walmart building, and Table 3.0-2, Walmart Building Square Footage

Breakdown, provides a breakdown of the approximate square footages. With the net addition of 41,433

square feet as proposed, the existing Walmart building would consist of 145,886 square feet. This

expanded Walmart store would include approximately 85,610 square feet of general merchandise area,

23,997 square feet of grocery sales area, 8,124 square feet of grocery storage and ancillary area, 20,666

square feet of stockroom/receiving area, and 7,489 square feet of ancillary area. The store would also

include a 5,385-square-foot outdoor garden center (reduced from 8,768 square feet). With the garden

center, the project would total 151,271 square feet.



Table 3.0-1Land Use Summary

Square Footage

Existing DemolitionProposedExpansion

NetIncrease/Decrease Total

Structure

Walmart store 104,453 -188 +41,621 +41,433 145,886

Outdoor Garden Center 8,768 -5,024 +1,641 -3,383 5,385

Subtotal 113,221 -5,212 +43,262 +38,050 151,271

Other

Roads/Parking/Walkways 365,000 -50,000 315,000

Landscaping 5,200 +2,300 7,500

Subtotal 370,200 -47,700 322,500

Table 3.0-2Walmart Building Square Footage Breakdown

Land Use Square FootageGeneral Merchandise Sales Area 85,610

Grocery Sales Area 23,997

Grocery Storage and Ancillary 8,124

Stockroom/Receiving Area 20,666

Ancillary Area 7,489

Total 145,886

Outdoor Garden Center 5,385

Total with Outdoor Garden Center 151,271

Source: Perkowitz + Ruth Architects

Conceptual Site Plan

FIGURE 3.0-3

651-010•08/09

SOURCE: EDA Design Professionals - December 2008

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETn

100 50 0 100

Legend:Proposed curb and gutterProposed sawcut lineProposed curbProposed Building ExpansionProject BoundaryExisting BuildingStriped Pedestrian Crosswalk

EntranceEntrance

GENERAL MERCHANDISE

GROCERY SALES AREA

STOCKROOM RECEIVING AREA

ANCILLARY AREA

GROCERY STORAGE & ANCILLARY

85,610 SF

23,997 SF

20,666 SF

7,489 SF

8,124 SF

OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER 5,385 SF

Legend

Department Plan

FIGURE 3.0-4

651-010•08/09

SOURCE: Perkowitz + Ruth Architects - 2008

NOT TO SCALEn



The existing store operates between the hours of 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM, with the expanded store

operating 24 hours per day. The expanded Walmart would provide for the additional employment of

approximately 85 permanent staff members and 20 temporary staff members within the City of Lompoc.

This number may vary during holiday seasons. The expanded Walmart would offer a full-service

supermarket, garden center, pharmacy/medical clinic, optical center, and 1-hour photo processing lab.

Building Design

Figure 3.0-5, Conceptual Elevations, illustrates the redesigned building massing, views, and architectural

material to be used.

The expanded store would be a single story structure and utilize contemporary retail architectural design.

The two existing primary entrances would be redesigned with one primarily serving the general

merchandise area and the other primarily serving the grocery sales area. The main elevation of the

building along Central Avenue would feature trellis structures and a seating area under a new shade tree.

Building elevations would be reduced in scale by including the pedestrian spaces, as well as by the

breaking up of the exterior wall into actual exterior and interior spaces through articulation. This would

be done by including a variety of architectural elements and a varied earth tone color palette. Curved

roofs and walls, natural materials along with contemporary materials such as translucent wall panels and

an abundance of transparent storefront glazing would be used. Architectural elements, such as trellises,

canopies, and articulated detailing, would be used to accentuate entrance spaces. Contrasting colors and

textureswould be used to break up the building mass.

Rooftop equipment would be screened from off-site areas by the building of parapet walls.

Sustainable Features

The proposed project will incorporate a number of sustainability features intended to reduce impacts on

the environment, including the following1:

� Energy-efficient HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) units: The new HVAC unitswill utilize, "super" high-efficiency packaged HVAC units. While the industry standard EnergyEfficiency Ratio (EER) is 9.0, the proposed new units are rated at approximately 12.1 (for 20-ton units)to 14.3 (for 3-ton units), which is approximately 4–17 percent more efficient than required byCalifornia Title 24.

1 Equal or greater energy efficient sustainability measures may be substituted to accommodate new technologiesand the rapidly evolving marketplace. In no event may energy efficient reductions be less than those set forth inthis EIR.



� Central Energy Management: The store will be equipped with an energy management system thatwill be monitored and controlled from the Walmart home office in Bentonville, Arkansas. The systemenables Walmart to monitor energy usage, analyze refrigeration temperatures, observe HVAC andlighting performance, and adjust lighting, temperature, and/or refrigeration set points 24 hours perday, seven days per week.

� Light Sensors: The building will include occupancy sensors in non-sales floor areas. These sensorsdetect activity in a room and automatically turn off the lights when the space is unoccupied.

� Dehumidifying: The building will include a dehumidifying system that allows Walmart to operatethe store at a higher temperature, use less energy, and allow the refrigeration system to operate moreefficiently.

� Food Displays: The building will include a film on the freezer doors that combats condensation andrequires no energy, unlike heating systems that are typically used to combat condensation.

� Water Heating: The new grocery area will capture waste heat from the refrigeration equipment toheat water for the kitchen prep areas of the store.

� White Roofs: The existing store has a "white" membrane roof versus most applications that are adarker color. The expansion area will also have a "white" membrane roof. The high solar reflectivityof this membrane results in lowering the "cooling" load by about 8 percent.

� Interior Lighting Retrofit Program: All lighting in the store will utilize T-8 fluorescent lamps andelectronic ballasts, which are the most efficient lighting on the market. The store will also use only"low-mercury" lamps, which are not considered to be a hazardous material and are considered to bevery "green friendly.” Although these lamps can be disposed of with no special precautions, out ofconcern for the environment, Walmart has volunteered to recycle these lamps instead of simplyplacing them in a landfill.

� LED Signage Illumination: All internally illuminated building signage will use light-emitting diode(LED) lighting. This application of LED technology is over 70 percent more energy efficient thanfluorescent illumination. With lamp life ranging to 100,000 hours, using LEDs significantly reducesthe need to manufacture and dispose of fluorescent lamps.

� Poured Concrete: Cement production is estimated to produce 7 percent of all greenhouse gas. Allpoured concrete for the expansion will include up to 15–20 percent fly ash. It is estimated that onepound of fly ash reduces one pound of greenhouse gas.

Conceptual ElevationsFIGURE 3.0-5

651-010•08/09

NOT TO SCALESOURCE: Perkowitz + Ruth Architects - 2008



� Recycling: The structure will include large amounts of recycled material.

� Steel recycling: Current construction standards on Walmart buildings include a substantialamount of recycled steel. New stores are built of nearly 100 percent recycled structural steel.Walmart structural steel suppliers use high efficient electric arc furnaces that use 50 percent lessenergy to manufacture recycled steel. Using recycled steel means less mining for new steel, and itis a material that can be readily recycled again if the building is demolished.

� Recycled Plastic: All of the plastic baseboards, and many of the plastic shelving, aremanufactured from recycled material.

� Water-Conserving Fixtures: All new restroom sinks will include sensor-activated low-flow faucets.The existing restrooms will also be remodeled to include these new faucets. The low-flow faucetsreduce usage by 84 percent. The sensors save approximately 20 percent of the remaining 16 percentusage over similar manually operated systems.

� Ozone-Friendly Refrigerants: Walmart has aggressively converted to less ozone-depletingrefrigerants as they become available. It uses R404a for the refrigeration equipment. For airconditioning, Walmart has converted to R410a refrigerant. The existing store currently utilizes thistechnology and the expansion area will also incorporate it.

CIRCULATION

Access




one access driveway to the Tire and Lube Express Facility, and one access driveway located at the

northern boundary of the project site for delivery trucks. The proposed project does not include any

modification to existing access points.

Parking/Loading

The City of Lompoc Zoning Ordinance standard requires 1 parking space per 250 square feet of gross

floor area for shopping centers. The total proposed store would equal 151,271 square feet (including the

garden center). Applying a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet, 605 parking spaces are required.

The proposed project provides 728 spaces consisting of 707 standard spaces, 18 handicap accessible

spaces, and 3 handicap van accessible spaces. In addition to these parking spaces, per Section 17.112.30 of

the Lompoc Municipal Code, the project would be required to provide one motorcycle space per

20 vehicle spaces, one bicycle space per 20 motor vehicle spaces, and one loading space.

One loading dock is planned to be added under the expansion of theWalmart store and would be located

along the northern portion of the Walmart building. The new loading dock well would be a depressed



concrete driveway enclosed within the loading bay. The building profile at the location of the loading

dock protrudes outward, which allows for the loading dock to be located parallel to the building

footprint. This design results in loading activity occurring within the interior of the building.

LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGE, AND LIGHTING

Figure 3.0-6, Preliminary Landscape Plan, illustrates the location and some of the landscaping proposed

to be used on the project site. The proposed project would comply with the City’s design guidelines,

codes, and regulations. In general, areas along the western and southern sides of the building would

include a variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses. The preliminary plant material list is provided below in

Table 3.0-3, Preliminary Plant Material List.

The existing irrigation system would be modified to provide irrigation to new and revised planting areas.

These planting areas would include areas at the end of the parking aisles located in front of the proposed

project. Any existing trees within 6 feet of walkways or paved surfaces would have root barriers installed.

The City of Lompoc would require that all landscaping be maintained in conformance with the approved

landscape plan.

Table 3.0-3Preliminary Plant Material List

Trees ShrubsChinese Hackberry Fortnight Lily

Eastern Redbud Texas Privet

Olive Hybrid New Zealand Flax

London Plane Indian Hawthorn

Krauter Vesuvius Plum Lavender Cotton

Shiny Xylosma

Escallonia rubra

Gazania

Euonymus fortunei

Figures 3.0-7, Site Plan Indicating Signage, illustrates the location of proposed signage for the expanded

Walmart. Signage on the building would be updated to include three additional ancillary signs along the

Central Avenue frontage. The project signage is intended to integrate and complement the building

architecture and be consistent with the approved sign program. Figure 3.0-8, Signage Front Elevation

and Figure 3.0-9, Signage Details, illustrate a visual depiction of the proposed signs. These three signs

would be placed at entrance locations and consist of a Walmart sign, a Market & Pharmacy sign, and



Home & Living sign. The building signage for the proposed project consists of a total of approximately

479 square feet. All signs would be non-illuminated, except the primary Walmart sign, which would be

internally lit by LED.

Lighting would be used to highlight architectural elements and building signage. In addition, security

and safety lighting would be provided for building walkways and parking areas. Light sources would be

oriented towards the ground or screened to minimize illumination into the surrounding areas and to

prevent interference with vehicle traffic.

UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Water Service

An existing 10-inch water line on O Street, 8-inch water line along the northern property boundary, and a

6-inch water line on the south side of the building would serve the project site. Lateral lines extending

from the proposed building would connect to these lines. No new off-site water mains or laterals would

be required to serve the proposed project.

Sewer Service

An existing 8-inch sewer line on O Street would serve the project site. Sewer lines extending from the

proposed building would connect to this existing line. No new off-site sewer lines or laterals would be

required to serve the proposed project.

Storm Drainage

An existing 36-inch storm drainage line on O Street and 30-inch storm drainage line along the northern

property boundary would serve the project site. Storm drainage lines extending from the proposed

building would connect to these lines. No new off-site storm drainage lines would be required to serve

the proposed project.

Electrical and Natural Gas

Electricity and natural gas transmission infrastructure presently exists on, and in the vicinity of, the

project site along O Street. Utility lines extending from the proposed building would connect to these

existing electrical and natural gas lines. No new off-site service lines would be required to serve the

proposed project.



CONSTRUCTION

Phasing and Construction Activities

The proposed project would consist of demolition, grading, construction, and repaving activities and

would be constructed in three primary phases. Overall, the construction period is anticipated to last up to

12 months. Figure 3.0-10, Phasing Plan, illustrates the location of construction activities during each

phase. Phase 1 would consist of construction of the truck dock, paving, and building expansion to the rear

and west of the existing Walmart store, and installing necessary fencing around the staging area. Phase 2

would consist of construction of the general merchandise entrance, parking lot, sidewalk, and relocation

of curbs and any existing landscaping in front of the store. A fence would be installed around the

construction area. Phase 3 would consist of construction of the grocery entrance, parking lot, sidewalk,

and curbs; and relocating landscaping. A fence would be installed around the construction area.

Grading within the building pad area will include approximately 1,400 cubic yards of cut materials and

the importing of approximately 2,100 cubic yards of additional fill materials. Grading within the building

pad area and for utility trenches may require rough grading up to depths of 4 feet below the ground

surface. Demolition, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving

equipment such as loaders, bulldozers, and other related equipment such as cranes. All heavy-duty

equipment would be contained on site over the duration of construction activities to prevent disruption

to the surrounding commercial and residential uses. While construction activities will vary depending on

the phase of the project, most of the equipment will be used early in the process and only for a short

period.

Preliminary Landscape PlanFIGURE 3.0-6

651-010•08/09

SOURCE: Conceptual Design & Planning Company - 2008

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

60 30 0 60

n

SIGN B SIGN A SIGN C

Site Plan Indicating Signage

FIGURE 3.0-7

651-010•08/09


NOT TO SCALEn

ILLUMINATED SIGN (I):

guration: Channel letters with vacuum formed face (pan-formed) anchored to building surface (concrete block or plaster). Internally illuminated with LED.Face: Constructed with Sunguard Weatherable PolycarbonateColor: WhiteMounting: Anchor bolt/bracket - size to be submitted to jurisdiction for approval prior to installation.Minimum 3 anchors per sign

NON-ILLUMINATED SIGN (N):

guration: Plexiglas formed letters stud mounted to building surface (concrete block or plaster).Face: Constructed with Sta-Tuf PlasticColor: White Mounting: Threaded stud - size to be submitted to jurisdiction for approval prior to installation.Minimum 3 studs per sign.

SIGN ASIGN B SIGN C

SIGN

Sign Area Sub-Total:

Total Building Signage Area:

A (I)B (N)C (N)

NAME

WalmartMarket & PharmacyHome & Living

DIMENSION

8’-7” x 35’-5”3’-5 1/2” x 29’-8 1/2”3’-4” x 21’-9 5/16”

TOTAL

303.99 sf102.74 sf72.59 sf

479.32 sf479.32 sf

Signage Front Elevation

FIGURE 3.0-8

651-010•08/09


NOT TO SCALEn

Signage A

C egangiSB egangiS

23’– 9”

5’–

1”

3’–

6”

Signage Details

FIGURE 3.0-9

651-010•02/10


NOT TO SCALE

Phasing PlanFIGURE 3.0-10

651-010•08/09

SOURCE: EDA Design Professionals - December 2008


100 50 0 100

n



Temporary street and sidewalk closures within and along the perimeter of the project site may be

required. In order to minimize potential conflicts between construction activity and through traffic, a

construction traffic control plan would be developed prior to project construction. The plan would

identify all traffic control measures, signs, alternate routes, or delineators required to be implemented by

the construction contractor through the duration of the demolition and construction activities.

A truck haul route program would also be implemented to minimize conflicts between haul trucks

traveling to and from the project site and through traffic on roadways surrounding the project. The

program would specify access points to the project site and delineate approved haul routes. It is expected

that trucks would access the site via O Street and Central Avenue.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

The erosion and sedimentation control plan for the proposed project is designed in accordance with

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit guidelines. The project would

implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to meet the requirements of the NPDES

permit during construction. The SWPPP plan would contain best management practices (BMPs) to

control erosion and water runoff during the construction phase of the proposed project.

Erosion and sediment controls would include BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil, and may

include, but would not be limited to, soil stabilization controls, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay

bales, and use of sediment basins. All SWPPP erosion and sediment controls would be in accordance with

the currently adopted California State Construction General Permit.

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED

The following technical reports were submitted by the project applicant in association with the proposed

project and have been independently reviewed by the City and its consultants:

� Rincon Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Walmart Store No. 1989, 701 West CentralAvenue, Lompoc, California, July 11, 2008.

� Earth Systems Pacific, Soils Engineering Report Walmart No. 1989-06 Expansion, November 21, 2007.

� Associated Transportation Engineers, Traffic and Circulation Study, Walmart Expansion Project, City ofLompoc, California,October 15, 2009.

� Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Environmental Noise Impact Analysis Lompoc Walmart Expansion,October 2009.

� Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis Lompoc Walmart Expansion, March2010.



� Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Energy Conservation, Electricity, and Natural Gas Technical StudyLompoc Walmart, December 2009.

� The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., Urban Decay Study for Expansion of Lompoc Walmart, December 28,2009.

� Rincon Consultants, Biological Resources Assessment for the Lompoc Wal-Mart Expansion, North "O" Street3 Acre Parcel, Santa Barbara County, California, October 3, 2007.

� Federal Aviation Administration, Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, August 25, 2009.

These reports are included as appendices to this EIR.

APPROVALS REQUESTED

This EIR (City Project Number EIR 09-02) provides the CEQA compliance documentation upon which the

City’s and other agencies’ consideration of an action on all necessary land use permits and other

approvals will be based. The City of Lompoc is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. This EIR

provides environmental information and evaluation needed by responsible agencies acting on permits

relative to the project and the project site. The Planning Commission will consider the information in the

EIR in conjunction with the development plans and the associated approvals and either approve or deny

the project.






Division. As such, the discretionary approvals required for the project include the approval of a


INTENDED USES OF THIS DRAFT EIR

This EIR addresses the potential impacts that may result from development of the proposed project

described in this section of the draft EIR. The EIR is intended to serve primarily as a source of information

for the City of Lompoc, which is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. As defined by CEQA, a Lead

Agency is the public agency with the principal responsibility for reviewing a project.

Trustee agencies are state agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project

that is held in trust for the people of the State of California. No trustee agencies have been identified for

the proposed project as a result of the distribution of the Notice of Preparation for this EIR.



Responsible agencies are agencies other than the lead agency with approval power over discretionary

actions related to the proposed project. Responsible agencies whose approval may be required include:

� California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and

� Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District


4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this section is to inform decision makers and the public of the type and magnitude of change to the

existing environment that would be caused by the proposed project, plus proposed and approved cumulative

development, in the City of Lompoc. Individual environmental topics addressed in this environmental impact report

(EIR) have been identified in the Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Lompoc for the proposed project. The

environmental impact analysis sections of this EIR provide a comprehensive discussion of the existing

environmental conditions, evaluate expected project-level and cumulative-level impacts that would result from the

project, and determine the level of significance of foreseeable impacts. The environmental impact analysis sections

identify mitigation measures intended to reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

Other environmental issues were eliminated or “scoped out” from detailed review in the Draft EIR during the

initial review of the project as the impacts were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or

significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level. These environmental issues are not

discussed in Section 4.0. The topics that were scoped out are identified and discussed in Section 8.0, Effects

Found Not to be Significant, of the Draft EIR.

CUMULATIVE METHODOLOGY

Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are

considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (California Environmental

Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts are the change in the environment that

results from the incremental impact of the project when added to that of other closely related past,

present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually

minor, but collectively significant, projects taking place over a period of time.

In order to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with existing development and

other expected future growth, the amount and location of growth expected to occur, in addition to that of

the proposed project, must be predicted. Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines allows the

following two methods of prediction: “(A) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future

projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the

agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning

document which is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions.”

For purposes of this EIR, a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects for assessingcumulative impacts is used. These projects are summarized below in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Projects

List.

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis


Table 4.0-1Cumulative Projects List

TAZ Location/Address Project Name/Number Development TypeAcreage/

Square Footage Project StatusApproved Projects – Under Construction

49 501 West Central Avenue(APN: 93-450-43)

In Shape City (CUP 07-05) Health Club facility inexisting building

23,500 sq. ft. Completed

37 211 North K Street(APN: 91-061-08)

Residential Project(DR 06-10)

5 Unit Apartment Complex 4,770 sq. ft. Withdrawn

35 112 North F Street(APN: 85-131-13)

Yanez Electric (DR 03-15) Three (3) New CommercialBuildings

6,700 sq. ft. Under construction

35 300 North G Street(APN: 85-022-02)

Barto Industrial Building(DR 04-12, CUP 06-06)

Office/Warehousing 12,580 sq. ft. Phase 1 – complete

35 127 North C Street(APN: 85-133-03, 04)

Foursquare Church(CUP 06-07)

Church Addition 1,995 sq. ft. Phase 2 –Under construction

31 Northeast Corner of OceanAvenue & Seventh Street(APN: 90-140-28, 24)

Lompoc Hospital(EIR 05-01, DR 05-28)

New 60-Bed Hospital 111,000 sq. ft. Under construction

38 1119 West Laurel Avenue(APN: 89-200-22)

Bean Warehouse(CUP 08-03)

Office Addition and TenantImprovement

500 sq. ft. and 3,200 sq. ft. Under construction

49 2200 Briar Creek Way(APN: 93-550-81)

DS Ventures SeabreezeApartments(LOM 545, DR 04-28)

64 Apartment Units 2.7 acres Under construction

36 516 North I Street(APN: 87-191-12)

Commercial Project(DR 06-06)

Mini Market 700 sq. ft. Under construction

35 340 North G Street(APN: 85-022-04)

Townsend/Hancock Industrial(DR 07-12, LOM 575-P)

Two (2) New IndustrialBuildings

3,500 sq. ft./2,400 sq. ft. Under construction

34 513 North G Street(APN: 87-192-19, 20)

Transitions Facility(CUP 05-06)

Counseling & AdvocacyFacility and 39 ExtendedStay Units

0.48 acres Under construction

35 North C St & WalnutAvenue (APN: 85-133-03)

Lompoc Foursquare Church(CUP 07-03)

Church Building 4,000 sq. ft. Under construction




Square Footage Project Status35 320 East Walnut Avenue

(APN: 85-131-01)Office use of existing building(CUP 06-10)

Office and tenantimprovement

2,860 sq. ft. Under construction

38 Northeast Corner of LaurelAvenue and V Street(APN: 89-500-81)

Crown Laurel (DR 04-35,LOM 544, ZC 04-07, GP 04-05)

73 Single Family Residences 9.53 acres Model homes under construction

Grading residential site

41 Southeast Corner of NorthAvenue and V Street(APN: 89-040-28)

George Ann Estates(DR 06-19, LOM 550)

8 Unit Residential Project 3.31 acres Grading permit issued

Building permit issued for modelhome

49 Northeast Corner of NorthAvenue & Bailey Avenue

(APN: 93-070-62)

The Gardens At Briar Creek -Centex Homes (GP 01-02,ZC 01-02, LOM 508, DR 01-02)

150 Single-FamilyResidences

39.4 acres Under construction

Certificate of Occupancy issued for70 homes

49 Southeast Corner of CentralAvenue & Bailey Avenue(APN: 93-070-63)

The Courtyards at BriarCreek - Centex Homes(GP 04-04, ZC 04-06, DR 04-28)

80 Single-Family Residences 36.4 acres Under constructionCertificate of Occupancy issued for14 homes

47 1025 block of Noah H Street(APN: 89-011-22)

Palm Square (DR 06-09) Facade remodel andconstruction of new padbuilding

5,000 sq. ft. new building Facade improvement underconstructionPad Building plans in plan check

Approved Projects – Plan Check

49 1800 block of West CentralAvenue (APN: 93-070-62)

Mini Storage Facility at BriarCreek (DR 06-21)

New industrial building 62,140 sq. ft Approved by PlanningCommission 3-12-07Grading plans in plan checkModifications approved byPlanning Commission 9-10-08

35 112-118 Noah H Street(APN: 85-122-16)

Lompoc Housing CommunityDevelopment Corporation(LHCDC) Lompoc TheaterProject (DR 06-25)

Construction of a 4,000 sfaddition to existing Theaterand second floorrenovations in OTC

4,000 sq. ft. addition Building plans in plan check

49 425 Commerce Court(APN: 93-450-03)

Raytheon addition (DR 08-08) 1,500 sq. ft. addition and1,150 sq. ft. building

2.35 acres Approved by PlanningCommission 10-8 -08

27 119 South H Street(APN: 85-161-10)

City Park in OTC (DR 05-27) Pocket Park and 3,000 sq. ft.Building

0.16 acre Approved by PlanningCommission 10-10-05 Buildingplans in plan check

49 1600 North O Street(APN: 93-450-57)

SeaSmoke Winery(DR 07-16) (LOM 579-P)

New Industrial Building 24,800 sq. ft. Approved by PlanningCommission 4-9-08Map approvedBuilding plans in plan check




Square Footage Project Status49 1500 North L Street

(APN: 93-450-59)Perry Winery Building New Industrial Building 49,265 sq. ft. Approved by Planning

Commission 5-14 -08

Building plans in plan check

47 1201 North H Street(APN: 89-490-13)

Hilton Garden Inn Hotel(DR 08-03)

New Hotel – 155 rooms 108,000 sq. ft. Approved by PlanningCommission 7-9-08

Building and grading plans in plancheck

Approved Projects

38 1408 West College Avenue(APN: 89-151-02, -03)

Habitat for Humanity(LOM581-P, DR 07-22,ZC 08-02)

4 -Unit Residential Project 2,700 sq. ft. Approved by City Council 8-19-08

42 600 block of North H Street(APN: 89-110-03)

Starbucks Coffee Company(DR 06-23)

New commercial padbuilding

1,700 sq. ft. Approved by PlanningCommission 5-14-09Time extension to 5-14-09

34 204 East Laurel Avenue(APN: 85-022-07)

Melville Winery(DR 07-19, LOM 578)

New Industrial Building 6,927 sq. ft. Approved by PlanningCommission 11-13-07Modifications approved byPlanning Commission9-10-08

27 211 South I Street(APN: 91-153-05)

Charlotte’s Web Children’sLibrary (DR 07-21)

New Public Facility 4,650 sq. ft. Approved by PlanningCommission 12-10-07Time extension to 12-10-09

262 The Cottages at BurtonRanch(APN: 97-250-02, -69, -70)

Residential Project(DR 07-02, LOM 567)

55 Residential units withcommon open space

14.3 acres Approved by PlanningCommission 5-14-08

262 The Towbes ResidentialDevelopment(APN: 97-250-05, -51, -62)

Residential Project (DR 07-01,LOM 570)

210 Residential units in four(4) distinct neighborhoodareas with common openspace

100.96 acres Approved by PlanningCommission 5-14-08

36 410 North K Street(APN: 89-232-10)

Residential Project (LOM 560,ZC 06-02, DR 06-03)

5 unit Residential Project 0.24 acre Grading plans in plan check

Time extension to 5-8-09

24 115 South Third Street(APN: 85-150-47)

Las Casitas (DR 07-03,LOM 528)

15 Single Family ResidentialDevelopment

41,560 sq. ft. Approved by PlanningCommission 3-12-07

Grading plan in plan check





Square Footage Project Status29 Southeast Corner of Ocean

Avenue & U Street(APN: 85-171-03, -15)

The Olson Company(LOM 555, DR 05-30, ZC 05-04)

60 Unit Residential Project 5.13 acres Approved by City Council 8-1-06Map in plan check


29 Southeast Corner of OceanAvenue and R Street(APN: 91-110-47)

The Olson Company(LOM 554, DR 05-29,ZC 05-03)

13 Residential Project 1.36 acres Approved by City Council 8-1-06

Map in plan check


35 Chestnut Avenue & HStreet (APN: 85-081-01, 02,85-082-03, 04, 05, 14, 15)

Chestnut Crossing(LOM 552, ZC 05-06, DR 05-36)

34 Residential Units and27,550 sf commercial space

1.85 acres Approved by City Council 8-01-06Time extension to 6-12-09

31 Laurel Avenue & TwelfthStreet (APN: 99-140-21)

River Terrace (EIR 04-01, LOM533, DR 04-03, GP 04-01,ZC 04-01)

Residential/CommercialDevelopment 308 units-Single Family Residences,Town Homes,Condominiums

26.31 acres Approved by City Council 8-16-05

Phase I grading plans in plancheck

Map in plan check


49 1275 North V Street(APN: 93-070-36)

Coastal Meadow(LOM 557, DR 05-39)

42 Unit Residential Project 3.09 acres Approved by City Council 7-18-06


Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, Final Traffic and Circulation Study, Walmart Expansion Project, 2009.Note: TAZ = traffic analysis zoneAPN = assessor parcel numberEIR = environmental impact report



In addition, the City of Lompoc is currently preparing a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan

(the “Update”). The last comprehensive Update occurred in 1997. The City is currently in Phase I of theUpdate, which includes updates to the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements. The Draft EIR’s

comment period for Phase I ended on November 30, 2009, and a Final EIR is currently in process. Phase 2

will include updates to the Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Parks and Recreation, UrbanDesign, and Public Service Elements.

At this time, the Update is preliminary and changes can be expected during the public process. However,

as presently conceptualized, the Update would have a de minimis cumulative effect on the proposedproject. First, the Update does not provide for or anticipate major changes to the overall land use pattern

in the city, stating that “Lompoc’s land use pattern is well established.” (City of Lompoc General Plan

Update Phase I “General Plan Update,” at 11-1). The Update’s proposed zoning map is nearly identicalto the current zoning in Lompoc, with floor-area ratios (FAR) in particular consistent with the FAR

allowed in the 1997 General Plan. (See General Plan at Figure LU-1; Table LU-1). The only significant

changes are a rezoning of some industrial areas from 0.75 to 0.50 FAR and an increase in the dwellingunits per acre in the Mixed Use and Old Town Commercial zones without any corresponding increase in

FAR or the percentage of space allowed for residential in those areas. (Table LU-1). In addition, aside

from pending and proposed projects, which have already been included in the cumulative analysis, theUpdate would not lead to any new and foreseeable development within the cumulative timeline horizon

for the proposed project. The Update includes four proposed annexation areas, but any such

development would not be constructed until well after the cumulative timeline horizon for the proposedproject. The Wye Area, Bailey Avenue Area, Miguelito Canyon, and River Area sites are not yet annexed

and any such development is in the early proposal stages only. Any meaningful analysis of these

annexation areas at this stage would be speculative and premature until more specific developmentapplications move forward. Should development ever proceed, these projects would include the

proposed project within their baseline, ensuring that total impacts would be evaluated at the appropriate

time.


4.1 AIR QUALITY

INTRODUCTION

This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the ambient air quality of the local and regional

areas and provides a comparison of existing air quality to applicable state and federal pollutant standards. The

purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential air quality impacts associated with the Walmart Expansion

Project, and to identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent possible.

Because the Walmart Expansion Project also would result in the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), this section

discusses the scientific and regulatory developments surrounding global climate change and provides a quantitative

inventory for the emissions that would result from project approval. In the absence of adopted regulatory criteria, a

significance criterion also was developed to assess the impact of the project's GHG emissions. Both project and

cumulative impacts were assessed against the identified significance criterion.

The information and analysis presented in this section of the EIR is based on the air quality impact analysis

prepared for the project by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates in March 2010. Refer to Appendix 4.1 of this EIR

for a copy of this study. Sources used for the air quality impact analysis include the Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District’s (SBCAPCD) Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental

Quality Act of 1970, as amended (November 16, 2000) and the Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in

Environmental Documents (July 2008). Additional air quality data was acquired from the California Air

Resources Board (CARB). Air quality calculations conducted for this analysis are contained within Appendix 4.1.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

South Central Coast Air Basin

The project site is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of San

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The site is situated in the west-central portion of the

SoCAB, in a region topographically dominated by the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains.

The SoCAB has a Mediterranean-type climate, with warm, dry summers and cool, intermittently rainy

winters. Table 4.1-1, Local Climate Conditions, summarizes local climate conditions in the City of

Lompoc. During the spring and summer months, cool, moist marine air frequently causes fog and low

clouds near the coast. The climate and topography of the region contribute to conditions that can lead to

persistent air pollution.

4.1 Air Quality


Temperature inversions, in which warm air overlies cooler air, can limit the dispersal of air pollutants

within the regional airshed or basin. In an inversion condition, a warm upper layer of air forms a cap

over the marine layer and inhibits the air pollutants generated near the ground from dispersing upward.

Two types of inversions typically occur in the region. A subsidence inversion is a regional effect created

by the dominant Pacific high-pressure area. It occurs when air warms up as it is compressed when it

flows from high-pressure areas over the ocean to lower-pressure areas inland. This type of inversion is

most common in summer, although it can occur throughout the year. Surface inversions are created when

air near the ground cools more rapidly during the night, and are common in winter. They are often

accompanied by stable air conditions with low wind speeds and uniform temperatures, which reduce the

rate of pollutant dispersion.

Table 4.1-1Local Climate Conditions1

Average Annual Rainfall 14.53 inches

Average High Temperature 69.7°F

Average Low Temperature 46.9°F

Annual Mean Temperature 58.3°F

Warmest Month September

Coolest Month December

Average Wind Speed2 7–8 mph (spring/summer)

6 mph (fall)

6–7 mph (winter)

Sources:1 Western Regional Climate Center, “Lompoc, California: Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary,”

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5064. 2009.2 Western Regional Climate Center, “California Average Wind Speed – MPH,” http://www.wrcc.dri.edu

/htmlfiles/westwind.final.html#CALIFORNIA. 2009.Note: The data reflected in the table above represents data obtained from the Lompoc monitoring stationfrom March 1917 through June 30 2009, except for wind speed, which is based on data from 1996 through2006.

Wind conditions in the project area can also inhibit pollution dispersal. The region typically experiences

onshore winds from the west or northwest during the day, alternating with mild offshore breezes that

flow from warm inland valleys during the night and early morning. This pattern can allow suspended

pollutants to be carried offshore at night and then back onshore the next day, especially during periods

when wind velocities are low.

4.1 Air Quality


Air pollutant emissions within the Basin are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary

sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an

identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples of point

sources are boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are

widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and

commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer

products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources are emissions from motor

vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road.

On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft,

ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by

the natural environment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and

suspended in the air during high winds.

Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor

concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health and welfare. These pollutants are

referred to as “criteria air pollutants” as a result of the specific standards or criteria that have been

adopted for them. The national and state standards have been set at levels considered safe to protect

public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly

with a margin of safety; and to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility

and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

The criteria air pollutants which are most relevant to current air quality planning and regulation in the

Basin include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10),

fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants (TACs)

are of concern in the Basin and will be discussed below.

Ozone (O3). Ozone is what is known as a photochemical pollutant. It is not emitted directly into the

atmosphere, but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between reactive organic

compounds (ROC), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sunlight, so it is considered a regional air pollutant. ROC

and NOX are emitted from automobiles, solvents, and fuel combustion. Significant O3 formation generally

requires an adequate amount of precursors and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong

sunlight. It is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by wind. The worst O3

concentrations tend to be found downwind from emission sources in metropolitan areas. Ozone exposure

can cause eye irritation and damage to lung tissue in humans. Ozone also harms vegetation, reduces crop

yields, and accelerates deterioration of paints, finishes, rubber products, plastics, and fabrics.

4.1 Air Quality


Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC). ROC, also known as reactive organic gases (ROG) or volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), are photochemically reactive hydrocarbons that are important for O3

formation. This definition excludes certain volatile compounds such as methane, carbon monoxide,

carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonates, methylene

chloride, methyl chloroform, and various chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX). Nitrogen oxides are a family of gaseous nitrogen compounds that are precursors

to O3 formation. The major component of NOX that impacts human health is nitrogen dioxide (NO2),

which is a reddish-brown gas that is toxic at high concentrations and discolors the air. NOX results

primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels under high temperature and pressure. Its health effects

include increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease.

Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed

by the incomplete combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air. Under most conditions, CO

does not persist in the atmosphere and is rapidly dispersed. CO concentrations are most likely to be the

highest during the winter months, when relatively low inversion levels trap pollutants near the ground

and concentrate the CO. CO health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high

concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in

people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity, and impaired mental abilities.

Particulates. Particulates are suspended particulate matter (airborne dust) and consist of particles small

enough to remain suspended in the air for long periods. Respirable particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

includes particulates of 10 microns or less in diameter: small enough to be inhaled, pass through the

respiratory system, and lodge in the lungs. These particles can consist of dust, sand, salt spray, metallic or

mineral particles as well as pollen, smoke, mist and acid fumes. Additional compounds of importance are

sulfate (SO4) and nitrates (NO3) from photochemical reactions of gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX in

the atmosphere because they can contribute to particle formation. The actual composition of PM10 and

PM2.5 varies greatly with time and location dependent upon the sources of the material and

meteorological conditions. Chronic particulate inhalation can cause bronchitis, chronic cough, respiratory

illness, pulmonary diseases and asthma exacerbations, decreased longevity, and lung cancer. Diesel

particulate matter has also been identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

(OEHHA) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC).

Sulfur Oxides (SOX). Sulfur oxides are gaseous compounds of sulfur and oxygen that are colorless but

contain a strong odor of “rotten eggs.” SOX is formed when sulfur-containing fuel is burned by mobile

sources, such as locomotives, ships, and off-road diesel equipment. SOX is also emitted from several

industrial processes, such as petroleum refining and metal processing. Exposure of a few minutes to low

4.1 Air Quality


levels of SOX can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics. All asthmatics are sensitive to the

effects of SOX. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity

leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SOX. In contrast, healthy

individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SOX.

Beginning in June 1, 2006, ultra-low sulfur diesel regulations adopted by CARB required all diesel fuel

used in the state to meet a new 15 parts per million (ppm) sulfur content standard. The new standard was

primarily adopted to allow for advanced diesel emissions control technologies to be implemented, many

of which requires low fuel sulfur content. Additional benefits from the new standard include reduced

emissions of diesel-related SOX.

Sulfates (SO42-). Sulfates are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with

metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the

combustion of petroleum-derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is

oxidized SO2 formed during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds

in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO2 to sulfates takes place comparatively rapidly and completely in

urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features. As discussed above, new regulations

limiting the sulfur content of fuels resulted in a reduction of transportation-related SO42- emissions.

Lead (Pb). Lead in the atmosphere is present as a mixture of several compounds. Leaded gasoline and

lead smelters have typically been the main sources emitted into the air. Lead was used as an additive that

increased the octane rating in gasoline. Since gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source

of airborne lead and given the use of leaded fuels have been largely phased out, the ambient

concentrations of Pb have dropped dramatically. In fact, the SBCAPCD itself no longer conducts ambient

monitoring for lead.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed

during bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. H2S is associated with

geothermal activity, oil and gas production, refining, sewage treatment plants, and confined animal

feeding operations. Hydrogen sulfide has a distinct odor and can cause dizziness, nausea, and headaches

at low concentrations, and more serious effects at higher concentrations. It is naturally emitted in

geothermal areas and is also associated with certain industrial processes. There is a state ambient air

quality standard for hydrogen sulfide but no corresponding national standard. Concentrations of this

pollutant are not monitored within the SoCAB.

4.1 Air Quality


Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild,

sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products.

Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to

microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents.

Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that

are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse

effects on human health. TACs are known to cause or contribute to cancer or non-cancer health effects

such as birth defects, genetic damage, and other adverse health effects.

They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of

common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting

operations, and research and teaching facilities. Toxic air contaminants are different than “criteria”

pollutants in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them, largely because there

are hundreds of air toxics and their effects on health tend to be felt on a local scale rather than on a

regional basis.

TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel

combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low

concentrations, even near their source (e.g., benzene near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result

in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level.

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the

cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a

complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health

effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as

benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as

carcinogens either under the state’s Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants

programs. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards that will reduce

diesel particulate matter substantially. These went into effect in June 2006.

4.1 Air Quality


Global Climate Change

Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature,precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer).1 Climate change may

result from:

natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around thesun;

natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlightfrom the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and

human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) andthe land surface (e.g., through deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification).

Greenhouse Effect

Heat retention within the atmosphere is an essential process to sustain life on Earth. The natural process

through which heat is retained in the troposphere2 is called the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouseeffect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process as follows: short-wave radiation emitted

by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave

radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this long-waveradiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long-wave (thermal) radiation emitted

back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect,

the Earth’s average temperature would be approximately -18 degrees Celsius (°C) (0 degrees Fahrenheit[°F]) instead of its present 14°C (57°F).3 The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and CO2. Many other

trace GHGs have a greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation than water vapor or CO2;

however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientistshave established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re-

radiate long-wave radiation. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the reference gas with a GWP

of 1. As an example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO2 over a specified period(typically 100 years) with respect to its ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation. The use of

GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG multiplied by

its associated GWP is referred to as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). This essentially means that 1metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 is equivalent to 10 metric tons of CO2 over a specified period.

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Glossary of Climate Change Terms,” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate_change. 2008.

2 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to12 kilometers). In general, day-to-day weather is confined to the troposphere (e.g., clouds, rain, convection, etc.).

3 National Climatic Data Center. “Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html. 2008.

4.1 Air Quality


Primary Greenhouse Gases

The following gases are considered to be the primary GHGs, as defined by the Kyoto Protocol, with the

exception of water vapor4:

Water Vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received as much scrutiny as the other GHGs, it is the

primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds contribute 66 to 85 percent of the

greenhouse effect (water vapor alone contributes 36 to 66 percent).5 Natural processes such asevaporation from oceans and rivers and transpiration from plants contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of

the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively.6 The primary human-related source of water vapor

comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significantamount (less than 1 percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor.7 Therefore, the control and

reduction of water vapor emissions is not within reach of human actions. The Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC) has not determined a GWP for water vapor.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide primarily is generated by fossil fuel combustion from stationary

and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources over the past250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent.8 Carbon

dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining the GWPs of

other GHGs. In 2004, 83.8 percent of California’s GHG emissions were carbon dioxide.9

Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires,

landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top threesources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation.10 Methane is the primary

component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power

generation. The GWP of methane is 21.

4 All GWPs are given as 100-year GWP. Unless noted otherwise, all GWPs were obtained from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change – Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1996.

5 Gavin A. Schmidt, “Water Vapour: Feedback or Forcing?” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142. 2005.6 United States Geological Survey, “The Water Cycle: Evaporation,” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu

/watercycleevaporation.html. 2007.7 Energy Information Administration, “Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994,” http://www.eia

.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/exec2.html. 2008.8 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-

2006,” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 2008.9 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Figure 2.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF. 2006.10 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Methane: Sources and Emissions,” http://www.epa.gov

/methane/sources.html. n.d.

4.1 Air Quality


Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary

human-related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewagetreatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid

production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 310.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs typically are used as refrigerants in both stationary refrigeration and

mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is growing particularly as the

continued phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gainsmomentum. The GWP of HFCs range from 140 for HFC-152a to 6,300 for HFC-236fa.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine. They are

primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending

on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to50,000 years).11 The GWPs of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900.

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, nontoxic,

nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that

transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated

by the IPCC with a GWP of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWPwould indicate due to its low mixing ratio, as compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] of SF6

in 1990 versus 365 ppm of CO2).12

Other Greenhouse Gases

In addition to the primary GHGs discussed above, many other compounds have the potential to

contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances previously were identified as stratosphericozone depletors; therefore, their gradual phaseout currently is in effect. The California Global Warming

Solutions Act of 2006 (see below) defined GHG to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide,

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. California SB 104 (approved by theGovernor in October 11, 2009) added nitrogen trifluoride to this list. Some of the noteworthy compounds

are discussed below:

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to

CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the

Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that adhere to the protocol are subject to a consumption cap

11 Energy Information Administration, “Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and SulfurHexafluoride,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html. n.d.

12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “High GWP Gases and Climate Change,” http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6. n.d.

4.1 Air Quality


and gradual phaseout of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to reduce its HCFC consumption to the

allowed cap by 2030. The GWPs of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC-123 to 2,000 for HCFC-142b.13

1,1,1-trichloroethane. 1,1,1-trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent that

was commonly used by manufacturers. In 1992, the US EPA issued Final Rule 57 FR 33754, whichscheduled the phaseout of methyl chloroform by 2002.14 This was later accelerated to a 1995 phaseout.

The GWP of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of carbon dioxide.15

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosol spray

propellants. CFCs also were part of the US EPA’s Final Rule 57 FR 3374, and were phased out in 1995.

Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaningsolvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect.

CFCs are potent GHGs with GWPs ranging from 4,600 for CFC-11 to 14,000 for CFC-13.16

Ozone (O3). Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere17 where it is largely responsible for filtering

harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In the troposphere, ozone acts as a GHG by absorbing and

re-radiating the infrared energy emitted by the Earth. As a result of the industrial revolution and risingemissions of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds, both of which act as ozone precursors,

the concentrations of ozone in the troposphere have increased.18 Due to the short life span of ozone in the

troposphere, its concentration and contribution to global climate change is not well established. However,the greenhouse effect of tropospheric ozone is considered small, as the radiative forcing19 of ozone is

25 percent of that of CO2.20

Nitrogen Trifluoride. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, toxic, nonflammable

gas. It has one of the highest GWP among GHGs (17,200) with an atmospheric lifetime of 740 years.

13 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global WarmingPotential for Ozone-Depleting Substances,” http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1996/January/Day-19/pr-372.html. 1996.

14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “The Accelerated Phase-Out of Class 1 Ozone-DepletingSubstances,” http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/accfact.html. 2007.

15 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone.”16 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Class I Ozone Depleting Substances,” http://www.epa.gov

/ozone/ods.html. 2006.17 The stratosphere is defined as the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere above the troposphere from approximately 10

to 12 miles up to 30 to 35 miles. The ozone layer is located in the stratosphere.18 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2001: Tropospheric Ozone,” http://www.grida

.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/142.htm. n.d.19 Radiative forcing, measured in Watts/m2, is an externally imposed perturbation (e.g., stimulated by greenhouse

gases) in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system (i.e., energy and heat retained in thetroposphere minus energy passed to the stratosphere).

20 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary forPolicymakers,” http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf. 2007.

4.1 Air Quality


Nitrogen trifuoride is emitted during manufacture of various electronics including televisions,

photovoltaic solar panels, and microprocessors.

Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Global

Global GHG emissions are separated into Annex 1 (i.e., industrialized countries) and Non-Annex 1

(i.e., developing countries) countries. Worldwide anthropogenic (man-made) GHG emissions as of 2005

(i.e., the latest year for which data are available for Annex I countries) totaled approximately30,800 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e).21 It should be noted that global emissions inventory data

are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the emissions inventory data.22

Six countries and the European Community accounted for approximately 70 percent of the total globalGHG emissions in 2005 (See Table 4.1-2, Six Top GHG Producer Countries and the European

Community). The GHG emissions in more recent years may differ from the inventories presented in

Table 4.1-2; however, the data is representative of currently available inventory data.

United States

As noted in Table 4.1-2, the United States was the top producer of greenhouse gas emissions as of 2005.

Based on GHG emissions in 2004, six of the states—Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and

Florida, in ranked order—would each rank among the top 30 GHG emitters internationally.23 The

primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representingapproximately 84 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.24 Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel

combustion, the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions, accounted for approximately 80 percent

of US GHG emissions.25

21 The CO2 equivalent emissions commonly are expressed as “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent(MMTCO2E)” The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by theassociated GWP, such that MMTCO2E = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, theGWP for methane is 21. This means that the emission of one million metric tons of methane is equivalent to theemission of 21 million metric tons of CO2.

22 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non-Annex I countries without counting Land-Use, Land-UseChange and Forestry (LULUCF). For countries without 2005 data, the UNFCCC data for the most recent yearwere used. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Annex I Parties – GHG total withoutLULUCF,” http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_data_from_unfccc/ time_series_annex_i/items/3841.phpand “Flexible GHG Data Queries” with selections for total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF/LUCF, all years,and non-Annex I countries, http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries/Event.do?event=showProjection. n.d.

23 World Resources Institute, “How US State GHG Emissions Compare Internationally,” http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/106. 2006.

24 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”25 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”

4.1 Air Quality


Table 4.1-2Six Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Community

Emitting CountriesGHG Emissions

(MMTCO2e)*United States 7,241.51

China 4,882.72

European Community 4,192.61

Russian Federation 2,132.51

India 1,606.51

Japan 1,359.92

Germany3 1,001.51

Total: 21,415.7

Sources:1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “GHG total without LULUCF,”

http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_data_from_unfccc/time_series_ annex_i/items/3841.php. n.d.2 GHG emissions for China and India (Calendar Year 2000) were obtained from the World Resources

Institute’s Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) http://www.cait.wri.org/cait.php3 Germany’s GHG emissions are included in the European Community. The emissions were not included in

the total to avoid double counting.* Excludes emissions/removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)

State of California

Based upon the 2004 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) compiled by

CARB for the California 1990 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, California emitted 484 MMTCO2e,

including emissions resulting from out-of-state electrical generation.26 Based on the CARB inventory and

GHG inventories for countries contributing to the worldwide GHG emissions inventory compiled by the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for 2005, California’s total GHG

emissions rank second in the United States (Texas is number one) with emissions of 423 MMTCO2e

(excluding emissions related to imported power).27

A CEC emissions inventory report placed CO2 produced by fossil fuel combustion in California as the

largest source of GHG emissions in 2004, accounting for 81 percent of the total GHG emissions.28 CO2

emissions from other sources contributed 2.8 percent of the total GHG emissions; methane emissions

5.7 percent; nitrous oxide emissions 6.8 percent; and the remaining 2.9 percent was composed of

26 California Air Resources Board. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit.November 16, 2007.

27 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Annex I Parties – GHG total without LULUCF,”http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_data_from_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/ items/3841.php.

28 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004.

4.1 Air Quality


emissions of high-GWP gases.29 These high GWP gases are largely composed of refrigerants, with small

contributions of SF6 used in connection with insulating materials for electricity transmission anddistribution.

The primary contributors to GHG emissions in California are transportation, electric power production

from both in-state and out-of-state sources, industry, agriculture and forestry, and other sources, whichinclude commercial and residential activities. These primary contributors to California’s GHG emissions

and their relative contributions are presented in Table 4.1-3, GHG Sources in California. It should be

noted that emissions from each of these economic sectors are not confined to emissions from a singleprocess, since there is crossover with other sectors. For example, fossil fuel combustion occurs in several

of the sectors in Table 4.1-3. In the case of landfills, methane emissions and CO2 emissions and sinks are

reported in their respective portions of the inventory. Taken together, the CO2 sinks approximately offsetthe landfill methane emissions. Additionally, fuel-related GHG emissions from transporting wastes to

landfills are included in transportation fuels.

Table 4.1-3GHG Sources in California

Source Category

Annual GHGEmissions

(MMTCO2e)1

Percent ofTotal

Annual GHGEmissions

(MMTCO2e)2

Percent ofTotal

Agriculture 27.9 5.8% 27.9 6.6%

Commercial Uses 12.8 2.6% 12.8 3.0%

Electricity Generation 119.8 24.7% 58.5 13.8%

Forestry (excluding sinks) 0.2 0.0% 0.2 0.0%

Industrial Uses 96.2 19.9% 96.2 22.7%

Residential Uses 29.1 6.0% 29.1 6.9%

Transportation 182.4 37.7% 182.4 43.1%

Other3 16.0 3.3% 16.0 3.8%Totals 484.4 100.0% 423.1 100.0%

Source: California Air Resources Board, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit, (2007).1 Includes emissions associated with imported electricity, which account for 61.3 MMTCO2e annually.2 Excludes emissions associated with imported electricity.3 Unspecified combustion and use of ozone-depleting substances.

29 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004.

4.1 Air Quality


Emissions from fuel use in the commercial and residential sectors in California decreased approximately

9.7 percent over the 1990-to-2004 period. The decrease in greenhouse gases could demonstrate the

effectiveness of energy conservation in buildings (Title 24 requirements) and appliances. The decrease in

GHGs attributed to these sources is even more substantial when the population increase in California is

considered.

Indication of Anthropogenic Influences

The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational

record. For example, surface temperature data shows that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank

among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface

temperature.30 In addition, the atmospheric water vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s

over land, sea, and in the upper atmosphere, consistent with the capacity of warmer air to hold more

water vapor; ocean temperatures are warmer to depths of 3,000 feet; and a marked decline has occurred

in mountain glaciers and snowpack in both hemispheres, and in polar ice and ice sheets in both the arctic

and Antarctic regions.31

Influences of Industrialization

Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the

global atmospheric variation of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from before the start of the

industrialization, around 1750, to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that carbon

dioxide concentrations ranged from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. For the period from around 1750 to the present,

global carbon dioxide concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of

280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period

range.32 Global methane and nitrous oxide concentrations show similar increases for the same period (see

Table 4.1-4, Comparison of Global Pre-Industrial and Current GHG Concentrations).

30 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”31 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”32 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”

4.1 Air Quality


Table 4.1-4Comparison of Global Pre-Industrial and Current GHG Concentrations

Greenhouse Gas

Early IndustrialPeriod

Concentrations(ppm)

Natural Range forLast 650,000 Years

(ppm)

2005Concentrations

(ppm)Carbon Monoxide (CO) 280 180 to 300 379

Methane (CH4) 715 320 to 790 1774

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 270 NA 319

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary forPolicymakers, (2007).

Effects of Global Climate Change

The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric

temperature of 0.2 °C per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between

1990 and 2005.33 Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming is

likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current

century.34 Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems and to California may include, but may

not necessarily be limited to:

declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surfaceevaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’sability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;35

rising average global sea levels primarily due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers, icecaps, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;36

changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, andmore energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves,extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones;37

33 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”34 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”36 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”37 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007.”

4.1 Air Quality


Declining Sierra snowpack levels, which account for approximately half of the surface water storagein California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;38

Increasing the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending on thefuture temperature scenario) in high ozone areas located in the Southern California area and the SanJoaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century;39 and

Increasing the potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and sea water intrusion into theSacramento Delta and associated levee systems due to the rise in sea level.40

Because climate change is already affecting California and current emissions will continue to drive

climate change in the coming decades, regardless of any mitigation measure that may be adopted, the

necessity of adaptation to the impacts of climate change is recognized by the State of California. Climate

change risks are evaluated using two distinct approaches: (1) projecting the amount of climate change

that may occur using computer-based global climate models; and (2) assessing the natural or human

system's ability to cope with and adapt to change by examining past experience with climate variability

and extrapolating this to understand how the systems may respond to the additional impact of climate

change.

Consistent with Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order No. S-13-08, which called on state agencies

to develop strategies for the identification and mitigation of expected climate impacts, the California

Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) recently issued a document—the 2009 California Climate Adaptation

Strategy (Adaptation Strategy; December 2009)—that discusses the impacts of climate change upon

California, as well as California's climate adaptation strategy.41 The major anticipated climate changes

expected in the State of California, as indicated above, include increases in temperature and sea level, and

decreases in precipitation, particularly snowfall. These gradual changes will also lead to an increasing

number of extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. This would impact public

health, ocean and coast resources, water supply, agriculture, biodiversity and the transportation and

energy infrastructure. These issues are summarized further below.

38 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to GovernorSchwarzenegger and the Legislature. 2006.



41 The Adaptation Strategy is available online at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/.

4.1 Air Quality


Rising Temperatures

The Adaptation Strategy highlighted new projections issued by MIT modelers that predict a median

probability of surface warming of 5.2 °C by 2100, which is much higher than previous modeling

completed in 2003. Researchers modeled temperature changes specifically related to California. The

model predicted greater temperature increases in summer than winter, and larger increases inland

compared to the coast.

Tipping Elements

The Adaptation Strategy emphasized "tipping elements," which bring about "abrupt changes that could

push natural systems past thresholds beyond which they could not recover." According to CNRA,

there are four main events that could bring about abrupt environmental changes:

1. A reduction in Arctic sea ice, which allows the (darker) polar oceans to absorb more sunlight,

thereby increasing regional warming, accelerating sea ice melting even further, and enhancing Arctic

warming over neighboring (currently frozen) land areas.

The release of methane (a potent GHG), which is currently trapped in frozen ground

(permafrost) in the Arctic tundra, will increase with regional warming and melting of the ground,

leading to further and more rapid warming and resulting in increased permafrost melting.

Continued warming in the Amazon could cause significant rainfall loss and large scale dying

of forest vegetation, which will further release CO2.

The accelerated melting of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets observed in recent times,

together with regional warming over land and in the oceans, involves mechanisms that can reinforce

the loss of ice and increase the rate of global sea-level rise.

Extreme Natural Events

The Adaptation Strategy listed extreme natural events are likely to occur, including higher nighttime

temperatures and longer, more frequent heat waves overall; a 12 to 35 percent decrease in

precipitation levels by mid- to late-21st century; increased evaporation and faster incidences of

snowmelt that will increase drought conditions, and more precipitation in the form of rain as

compared to snow that will decrease water storage in California during the dry season and increase

flood events during the wet season.

4.1 Air Quality


Precipitation Changes and Rivers

The Adaptation Strategy noted that climate change will intensify California's "Mediterranean climate

pattern," with the majority of annual precipitation occurring between November and March and drier

conditions during the summer. This will increase droughts and floods and will affect river systems.

One identified way to quantify potential impacts related to river systems is through calculating a rise

in water temperature and its effects on fisheries resources.

Sea Level Rise

The Adaptation Strategy observed that sea level rise could cause damage to coastal communities and

loss of land, which could reach tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs and trillions of

dollars of assets in collateral risk. Current calculations of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 estimate

approximately 7 inches along the California coast. Further, up to 55 inches of sea-level rise globally

by the end of the 21st century is predicted under the "business as usual" model.

Low Sea Ice Levels

The Adaptation Strategy stated that substantial sea ice melting from Greenland and the West Antarctic

Ice Sheet has the potential to further raise sea levels. The sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas

(i.e., Greenland, Norway, and Iceland Seas) is at the lowest level observed in the last 800 years. The

implication being that a substantial reduction in sea ice in the Arctic sea promotes alterations in

atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns that extend to the mid-latitudes (e.g., the

California coast). Additionally, it was reported that the variations in sea ice extent are correlated with

changes in sea surface temperatures and atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the North

Atlantic.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a marine-based ice sheet with edges that flow into floating ice shelves.

Both the main sheet and the surrounding shelves have been showing signs of shrinking and

collapsing due to global warming. Researchers have tracked the fate of at least nine shelves that have

receded or collapsed around the Antarctic peninsula in the past 50 years.

Ocean Chemistry

The Adaptation Strategy also noted that an emerging effect from climate change may be acidification of

the ocean. In turn, acidification will affect the ability of hard-shelled invertebrates to create their

skeletal structures. The implications of this change being major losses to shellfish industries, and

shifts in food resources for ocean fisheries. The primary contributing factors were cited as increasing

4.1 Air Quality


level of CO2 and weather pattern shifts. Increases in CO2 result in increased uptake by the oceans,

which result in decreased pH (acidification). Weather pattern shifts change the amount of calcium

carbonate being delivered by rivers from sources stored in rocks, which further exacerbates the

ability of invertebrates to form calcified shells.

One of the main contributing factors to CO2, outside of human influences, is melting permafrost.

When permafrost thaws, it releases carbon into soil or beneath lakes and releases CO2 and methane

into the atmosphere. Scientists are now estimating that there is more than twice the total amount of

carbon stored in permafrost as there is in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and "could amount to roughly

half those resulting from global land-use change during this century."

As noted above, the Adaptation Strategy identifies general and specific strategies intended to facilitate

California's adaptation to a changing climate. Key preliminary recommendations included in the

Adaptation Strategy follow:

1. Appointment of a Climate Adaptation Advisory Panel;

2. Improved water management in anticipation of reduced water supplies, including a 20 percentreduction in per capita water use by 2020;

3. Consideration of project alternatives that avoid significant new development in areas that cannot beadequately protected from climate change effects (e.g., flooding; sea level rise; wildlife hazards);

4. Preparation of state agency-specific adaptation plans, guidance or criteria by September 2010;

5. Consideration of climate change impacts for all significant state projects;

6. Assessment of climate change impacts on emergency preparedness;

7. Identification of key biological habitats and development of plans to minimize adverse effects fromclimate change;

8. Development of guidance by the California Department of Public Health by September 2010 for useby local health departments to assess adaptation strategies;

9. Amendment of local land use plans to assess climate change impacts and develop local risk reductionstrategies;

10. Inclusion of climate change impact information into fire program planning by state fire fightingagencies;

11. Satisfaction of projected population growth and increased energy demand with greater energyconservation and increased renewable energy resources; and,

4.1 Air Quality


12. Development by the California Energy Commission (CEC) of a CalAdapt website, by September2010, that synthesizes existing California climate change scenarios and climate impact research, witha focus on identifying potential funding sources.

Regulatory Framework

Air quality within the SoCAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local

government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through

legislation, regulations, planning, policy making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies

primarily responsible for improving the air quality within the SoCAB are discussed below along with

their individual responsibilities.

US Environmental Protection Agency

The US EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA refers to legislation

enacted by Congress to control air pollution at a national level. The CAA has been revised several times

in the form of amendments to the legislation. The 1977 CAA Amendments did not sufficiently address

the environmental impacts caused by the subsequent growth in the nation’s population and subsequent

rise in automobile operations. The 1990 CAA Amendments addressed tailpipe emissions from

automobiles, heavy-duty engines, and diesel fuel engines. The 1990 Amendments also established more

stringent standards for hydrocarbons, NOX, and CO emissions. Since emissions of hydrocarbons and NOX

form ground-level ozone due to photochemical reactions in the atmosphere, these standards were

strengthened in order to reduce ozone and carbon monoxide levels in heavily populated areas. Under the

1990 CAA Amendments, fossil fuels became more strictly regulated by requiring new fuels to be less

volatile, contain less sulfur (regarding diesel fuels), and have higher levels of oxygenates

(oxygen-containing substances to improve fuel combustion).

The 1977 CAA Amendments did not achieve sufficient reductions in toxic emissions. Therefore, the 1990

CAA Amendments specifically called out 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are carcinogenic,

mutagenic, and/or reproductive toxins, and required new programs to reduce their emissions. Title III of

the 1990 federal CAA Amendments amended Section 112 of the CAA to replace the former program with

an entirely new technology-based program. The program involves identifying all major sources of HAPs

(greater than 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAPs) and area sources

(i.e., non-major sources) and requiring the implementation of Maximum Achievable Control

Technologies (MACT) to reduce toxic emissions and associated health impacts.

The US EPA is also responsible for enforcing and revising, as needed, the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). These standards identify levels of air quality for seven criteria pollutants: O3, CO,

4.1 Air Quality


NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The threshold levels are considered to be the maximum concentration of

ambient (background) air pollutants determined safe, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the

public health and welfare. The averaging times for the various pollutants range from 1 hour to annual,

depending on the pollutant’s potential to cause short-term or long-term health impacts. The standards are

reported as a concentration, in units of ppm by volume, or as a weighted mass of material per a volume

of air, in units of micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air (µg/m3).

The US EPA designates air basins as being in attainment or nonattainment for each of the seven criteria

pollutants. Nonattainment air basins are ranked (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme)

according to the degree of the threshold violation. The air basin is then required to submit a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) that describes how the state will achieve the federal standards by specified

dates. The stringency of emission control measures in a given SIP depends on the severity of the air

quality within the specific air basin. The project is located in the Santa Barbara County portion of the

South Central Coast Air Basin, which is given NAAQS designations separately from the other counties

that make up the South Central Coast Air Basin. The County’s designations with respect to the NAAQS

are summarized in Table 4.1-5, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants (South Central Coast Air Basin

– Santa Barbara County).

California Air Resources Board

CARB is a department within the state cabinet-level California Environmental Protection Agency

(Cal/EPA) and is responsible for overseeing air quality planning and control throughout the state. It is

primarily responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), responding

to the federal CAA requirements, and for regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer

products within California. CARB has established emission standards for vehicles sold in California and

for various types of equipment available commercially. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce

vehicular emissions. CARB also supervises and supports the regulatory activities of local air quality

districts as well as monitors air quality itself within the state.

The CCAA was enacted in 1988 and established a legal mandate for air basins in the state to achieve the

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. These standards apply

to the same seven criteria pollutants as the federal CAA and also include sulfates, visibility reducing

particles, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The state standards are more stringent than the federal

standards and, in the case of PM10 and SO2, far more stringent. Health and Safety Code section 39607(e)

requires CARB to establish and periodically review area designation criteria. These designation criteria

provide the basis for CARB to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified

for the state standards. In addition, Health and Safety Code section 39608 requires CARB to use the

4.1 Air Quality


designation criteria to designate areas of California and to annually review those area designations.

CARB makes area designations for 10 criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO4-2, lead, H2S,

and visibility-reducing particles. CARB designates an area as nonattainment for a pollutant if monitoring

data shows that a violation of the CAAQS for a particular pollutant occurred at least once during the

previous three years. The status of the SoCAB with respect to attainment with the CAAQS is also

summarized in Table 4.1-5.

Table 4.1-5Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants

(South Central Coast Air Basin – Santa Barbara County)

Pollutant State FederalO3 1-hour Attainment Attainment

(Standard was revoked)

O3 8-hour Nonattainment Attainment

PM10 Nonattainment Attainment

PM2.5 Unclassified Attainment

CO Attainment Attainment

NO2 Attainment Attainment

SO2 Attainment Attainment

Lead Attainment Attainment/Unclassified

All others Attainment/Unclassified Not Applicable

Source: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution control District, “Santa Barbara County Air Quality AttainmentDesignation,” http://www.sbcapcd.org/sbc/attainment.htm. 2009.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

The SBCAPCD has jurisdiction over the County of Santa Barbara. The County is part of the South Central

Coast Air Basin, which consists of Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties. An air basin is

a land area with similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout. To the extent possible, air

basins include both the air pollutant source and immediate downwind receptor areas. The management

of air quality in Santa Barbara County is the responsibility of the SBCAPCD, which is responsible for

bringing air quality in the County into conformity with federal and state air quality standards.

Specifically, the SBCAPCD is responsible for monitoring ambient air pollutant levels throughout the

County and for developing and implementing attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will

be within federal and state standards.

4.1 Air Quality


The SBCAPCD primarily regulates emissions from stationary sources such as manufacturing and power

generation. Mobile sources such as buses, automotive vehicles, trains, and airplanes are largely out of the

SBCAPCD’s jurisdiction and are up to CARB and the US EPA to regulate. In order to achieve the air

quality standards, the SBCAPCD adopts a Clean Air Plan (CAP) that serves as a guideline to bring

pollutant concentrations into attainment with federal and state standards. The SBCAPCD determines if

certain rules and control measures are appropriate for their specific region according to technical

feasibility, cost effectiveness, and the severity of nonattainment. Once the SBCAPCD has adopted the

proper rules, control measures, and permit programs, it is responsible to implement and enforce

compliance with those rules, control measures, and programs.

Clean Air Plan

The SBCAPCD is required to produce plans describing how air quality will be improved. The CCAA

requires that these plans be updated triennially in order to incorporate the most recent available technical

information. In addition, the US EPA requires that transportation conformity budgets be established

based on the most recent planning assumptions (i.e., within the last five years). Plan updates are

necessary to ensure continued progress toward attainment and to avoid a transportation conformity lapse

and associated federal funding losses. A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal,

state, regional, and local levels implements the programs contained in these plans. Agencies involved

include the US EPA, CARB, local governments, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

(SBCAG), and the SBCAPCD.

The SBCAPCD is the agency responsible for preparing the CAP for the region under its jurisdiction. The

SBCAPCD adopted the 2007 Clean Air Plan (2007 CAP) in August 2007 and it has been approved by

CARB as the comprehensive State Implementation Plan component for the region.

The purpose of the 2007 CAP is to address both federal and state requirements. Under section 110(a)(1) of

the CAA, the current designation as an attainment area for federal 8-hour ozone standard requires a

maintenance plan. Health and Safety Code sections 40924 and 40925 require that every three years, areas

update their clean air plans to attain the state 1-hour ozone standard. The 2007 CAP provides a three-year

update to the SBCAPCD’s 2004 Clean Air Plan (2004 CAP) and contains an 8-hour ozone maintenance

plan. Other key requirements of the CCAA addressed in the 2007 CAP include demonstration of an

annual 5 percent emission reduction of ozone precursors, or, if this cannot be done, inclusion of every

feasible measure as part of the emission controls strategy. State law also requires the 2007 CAP to provide

for attainment of the state ambient air quality standards at the earliest practicable date (Health and Safety

Code section 40910). The 2007 CAP continues the overall strategy for control of both ROC and NOX

emissions adopted in the 2004 CAP.

4.1 Air Quality


SBCAPCD Rules and Regulations

The SBCAPCD has the primary responsibility under the California Health and Safety Code for

controlling air pollution from stationary sources in order to protect the public health. This responsibility

includes the authority to develop, adopt, and enforce rules. Specific rules and regulations have been

adopted by the SBCAPCD Board limiting the emissions that can be generated by various stationary uses

and activities, and identifying specific pollution reduction measures that must be implemented in

association with various stationary uses. These rules regulate the emissions of the six criteria air

pollutants, as well as toxic emissions and nuisance odors. They are also subject to ongoing refinement by

the SBCAPCD.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines

In November 2000, the SBCAPCD published its latest Guidelines for the Implementation of the California

Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Environmental Review Guidelines) as a guidance document

to provide lead agencies, consultants, and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air

quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to

CEQA. This document describes the criteria that the SBCAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on

the adequacy of environmental documents, such as this EIR. It recommends thresholds for use in

determining whether projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts and describes the

SBCAPCD’s procedures for review of environmental documents.

In July of 2008, the SBCAPCD published its latest version of the guidance document titled Scope and

Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. This document contains guidance on assessing

and mitigating air quality impacts. It includes an outline of the elements needed in EIRs, environmental

setting information for Santa Barbara County, significance thresholds for project and cumulative impacts,

County-specific instructions for air quality modeling, and a list of potential mitigation measures. This EIR

section was prepared following the recommendations of the Environmental Review Guidelines and Scope

and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents.

Asbestos-Containing Materials

If the demolition or renovation of a commercial building is proposed, the project applicant is required to

complete an Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Compliance Checklist, and the SBCAPCD must be

notified even if the existing building does not contain any asbestos.

Demolition of existing structures must comply with all requirements pursuant to SBCAPCD Rule 1001,

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Asbestos NESHAP). governing emissions of

4.1 Air Quality


asbestos. All structures should be stabilized and demolished in accordance with applicable regulations

contained in the Asbestos NESHAP. This regulation is intended to limit asbestos emissions from

demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste

material generated or handled during these activities. As implemented by the SBCAPCD, the regulation

requires that the SBCAPCD be notified before any demolition or renovation activity occurs. This

notification includes a description of the structures and methods utilized to determine the presence or

absence of asbestos. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to

demolition or renovation activity. As part of project implementation, the project applicant must comply

with the requirements of the Asbestos NESHAP. Project compliance with the Asbestos NESHAP ensures

that asbestos-containing materials would be removed and disposed of appropriately.

Local Governments

Local governments, such as the City of Lompoc, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air

pollution through their police power and land use decision-making authority. Specifically, local

governments are responsible for the mitigation of emissions resulting from land use decisions and for the

implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the 2007 CAP. The City of Lompoc

participates in the preparation and ongoing updates of the CAP through its position on the SBCAPCD

Board and by providing information that serves as the basis for land use, employment and population

projections used to develop CAP emissions inventories. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the

CEQA review process, local governments assess air quality impacts, require mitigation of potential air

quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitor and enforce implementation of such

mitigation.

In 1997, concurrent with the adoption of the updated general plan, the City of Lompoc adopted standard

air quality conditions that it imposes on new projects. These conditions target and are intended to reduce

short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The City’s PM10 abatement

program is patterned after the SBCAPCD-recommended dust control measures. The City requires project

applicants to implement the following:

1. A dust abatement program that requires construction contractors to implement the followingmeasures:

Sprinkle all construction areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice a day, duringexcavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Construction sites shall be watered and all equipment cleaned in the morning and evening toreduce particulate and dust emissions.

Cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similar materials, or surround them with windbreaks.

4.1 Air Quality


Cover trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces or have adequatefreeboard to prevent spillage.

Post signs that limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and over disturbed soils to 10 miles perhour during construction.

Soil binders shall be spread on construction sites, on unpaved roads, and on parking areas;ground cover shall be re-established through seeding and watering.

Sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce re-suspension ofdust through vehicle movement over those surfaces.

Require the construction contractor to designate a person or persons to oversee theimplementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary.

2. Measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (ROC and NOX) during construction that include:

all construction equipment engines and emission systems shall be maintained in properoperating order, in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, to reduce ozone precursoremissions from stationary and mobile construction equipment:

all construction projects on sites larger than 15 acres shall provide temporary traffic control (e.g.,flag person) to avoid unnecessary delays to traffic during construction activities, which interruptnormal traffic flow; and

if feasible, electricity from power poles or ground lines shall be used in place of temporary diesel-or gasoline-powered generators.

These measures are required for all projects regardless of the project size or duration. An effective dust

abatement program could be expected to reduce dust (PM10) emissions related to site grading and vehicle

travel on unpaved surfaces by about 60 percent, primarily from watering of exposed surfaces. Proper

maintenance of construction equipment would reduce mobile equipment emissions of ROC, NOX, and

PM10 by about 5 percent.

The City of Lompoc is currently updating the general plan. In July 2008, the City published an Issue Paper

on Noise and Air Quality that discusses policy considerations for the general plan update. The air quality

policy considerations suggest inclusion of measures that encourage development patterns that promote

the use of alternative modes of transportation, thereby incrementally reducing air contaminant emissions,

including greenhouse gas emissions. The Issue Paper references measures recommended by the SBCAPCD

that would have a beneficial impact on air quality. These measures include:

mixed-use developments that combine residential, employment, and retail uses;

sidewalks, safe street and parking lot crossings, shade trees, off-street breezeways, alleys, and showerand locker facilities for employee bicyclists to encourage alternative transportation modes;

4.1 Air Quality


building entrances that favor pedestrians rather than cars; and

future development that provides on-site services that reduce the need for off-site travel. Theseservices may include but are not limited to childcare facilities, telecommunication centers,neighborhood retail stores, postal machines, and automatic teller machines.

The Issue Paper recognizes that the SBCAPCD also recommends energy conservation measures to reduce

natural gas and electricity consumption, such as:

photovoltaic and wind generators;

duct system within the building thermal envelope;

passive cooling strategies;

high-efficiency, motion-controlled outdoor lighting;

natural lighting in buildings;

building siting and orientation, and landscaping to reduce energy use;

summer shading and wind protection measures;

use of concrete or other non-polluting materials for parking lots instead of asphalt;

installation of energy efficient appliances and lighting;

installation of mechanical air conditioners and refrigeration units that use non-ozone depletingchemicals; and

installation of sidewalks, bike paths, and covered bus stops.

Additional SBCAPCD-recommended energy conservation measures discussed in the Issue Paper include

the use of green building materials and green building practices. These include:

at least 50 percent of exterior of local masonry; plaster or cementitious siding; recycled, salvaged orcertified sustainably harvested wood; recycled roofing material or combination cement-fiber roofing;30-year rated life on minimum 50 percent of roof;

at least 50 percent interior floor of tile, stone, finished concrete; cork or natural linoleum, carpet andpad (tacked) of recycled content or natural content, minimal finishes;

all insulation to be 100 percent recycled content, wet-blown, and/or cellulose with UnderwritersLaboratories® (UL) fire retardant;

the use of light-colored water-based paint and roofing materials;

4.1 Air Quality


at least 80 percent of interior and exterior paints and finishes to be water-based or low ROC andadhesives to be solvent-free;

preparation of a construction waste management plan to encourage material re-use and minimizewaste; and

reduction of NOX emissions from construction equipment during project grading and construction byadhering to SBCAPCD recommendations.


Federal

Bush-Era National Policy Goal

In 2002, former President George W. Bush set a national policy goal of reducing the GHG emissions

intensity (tons of GHG emissions per million dollars of gross domestic product) of the U.S. economy by

18 percent by 2012. No binding reductions were associated with the goal. Rather, the US EPA administers

a variety of voluntary programs and partnerships with GHG emitters in which the US EPA partners with

industries producing and utilizing synthetic GHGs to reduce emissions of these particularly potent

GHGs.

April 2007 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

In Massachusetts et al. vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (April 2, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that the Clean Air Act does not prohibit the US EPA from regulating CO2 emissions from new

motor vehicles. The Supreme Court did not mandate that the US EPA enact regulations to reduce GHG

emissions, but found that the US EPA could only not take action if it found that GHGs do not contribute

to climate change or if it offered a "reasonable explanation" for not determining that GHGs contribute to

climate change.

Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Massachusetts decision (discussed above), the Bush

Administration issued an executive order on May 14, 2007, directing the US EPA and Departments of

Transportation (DOT) and Energy (DOE) to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor

vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. Further, on December 19, 2007, the Energy

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law, which requires an increased

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars

4.1 Air Quality


and light trucks by model year 2020.42 EISA also requires the establishment of interim standards (from

2011 to 2020) that will be the "maximum feasible average fuel economy" for each fleet. On October 10,

2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a final environmental

impact statement analyzing proposed interim standards for model years 2011 to 2015 passenger cars and

light trucks. NHTSA issued a final rule for model year 2011 on March 23, 2009.

On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a national policy for fuel efficiency and emissions

standards in the U.S. auto industry. The proposed rulemaking is a collaboration between the DOT and US

EPA with the support of the United Auto Workers. The proposed federal standards apply to passenger

cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles built in model years 2012 through 2016. If

finalized, the proposed rule would surpass the 2007 CAFE standards and require an average fuel

economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016. On May 22, 2009, the DOT and US EPA issued a notice of

upcoming joint rulemaking on this issue.

Clean Air Act Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings

In response to the Massachusetts ruling (discussed above), on April 24, 2009, the US EPA issued a

proposed endangerment finding, stating that high atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases "are the

unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in

average temperatures and other climatic changes." The US EPA further found that "atmospheric

concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of section 202

of the Clean Air Act." The US EPA announced that the proposed finding was adopted on December 7,

2009; while the finding itself does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities, it does

enable the US EPA to adopt regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 43 In late

December 2009, a legal action was filed challenging adoption of the endangerment finding.

Reporting Requirements

Congress passed "The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008" (HR 2764) in December 2007, which

included provisions requiring the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. The

legislation specifically directed the U.S. EPA to publish draft rules by September 2008, and final rules by

June 2009 that would mandate GHG reporting "for all sectors of the economy." The US EPA published

42 In addition to setting increased CAFE standards for motor vehicles, EISA addressed Renewable Fuel Standards(RFS) (Section 202); Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Section 301–325); and, Building EnergyEfficiency (Sections 411–441). Additional provisions of EISA address energy savings in government and publicinstitutions, promoting research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, internationalenergy programs, and the creation of "green jobs."

43 The US EPA's endangerment finding is available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.

4.1 Air Quality


draft reporting rules on April 10, 2009, and final reporting rules on October 30, 2009. The rules, effective

December 29, 2009, require suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and

engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual

reports to the US EPA.

State of California

Assembly Bill 1493

In response to the transportation sector’s contribution of more than half of California’s CO2 emissions,

Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493) was chaptered into law on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to adopt

regulations, by January 1, 2005, that would result in the achievement of the "maximum feasible" reduction

in GHG emissions from vehicles used in the state primarily for noncommercial, personal

transportation.44 As enacted, the AB 1493 regulations were to become effective January 1, 2006, and apply

to passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks manufactured for the 2009 model year or later.

Although the US EPA traditionally regulates tailpipe emissions, CARB maintains some regulatory

authority due to the severe air quality issues in California. In fact, pursuant to the federal CAA, CARB

may implement stricter regulations on automobile tailpipe emissions than the US EPA, provided a waiver

from the US EPA is obtained.

In September 2004, CARB adopted the AB 1493-mandated regulations and incorporated those standards

into the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program. The regulations set fleet-wide average GHG emission

requirements for two vehicle categories: passenger car/light duty truck (type 1) and light-duty truck

(type 2). The standards took into account the different global warming potentials of the GHGs emitted by

motor vehicles, and were scheduled to phase in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. If

implemented, these regulations would produce a nearly 30 percent decrease in GHG emissions from

light-duty vehicles by 2030.

CARB subsequently applied to the US EPA for a waiver under the Clean Air Act to authorize

implementation of these regulations. The waiver request was formally denied by the US EPA in

December 2007 after California filed suit to prompt federal action. In January 2008, the California

Attorney General filed a new lawsuit against the US EPA for denying California's request for a waiver to

regulate and limit GHG emissions from these automobiles. In January 2009, President Obama issued a

44 AB 1493 prohibited CARB from requiring: (1) any additional tax on vehicles, fuel, or driving distance; (2) a banon the sale of certain vehicle categories; (3) a reduction in vehicle weight; or (4) a limitation on or reduction ofspeed limits and vehicle miles traveled.

4.1 Air Quality


directive to the US EPA to reconsider California's request for a waiver. On June 30, 2009, the US EPA

granted the waiver for California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

Adopted in 2002, SB 1078 required electric utilities to increase procurement of power generated by

eligible renewable energy sources to 20 percent of total generation by 2017. In 2006, the adoption of

SB 107 accelerated the timetable to require 20 percent renewable energy by 2010. Subsequently, in 2008,

the Governor issued Executive Order S-14-08, which requires that the renewable content be increased to

33 percent by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09, signed in September 2009, directs CARB to adopt

regulations consistent with the 33 percent renewable energy target in Executive Order S-14-08 by July 31,

2010.

Executive Order S-3-05

In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets in

Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be

reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Secretary of Cal/EPA also is required by this order to coordinate the efforts of various agencies in

order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Some of the agency representatives involved include

the Secretary of the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Secretary of the Department of Food

and Agriculture, Secretary of the CNRA, the Chairperson of CARB, the Chairperson of the California

Energy Commission (CEC), and the President of the Public Utilities Commission. Representatives from

each of the aforementioned agencies comprise the Climate Action Team. The Climate Action Team is

required to submit a biannual progress report to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the

progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be

submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California’s water supply, public health,

agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and reporting possible mitigation and adaptation plans to combat

these impacts. The Climate Action Team has fulfilled both of these reporting requirements through its

March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.45 Some

strategies currently being implemented by state agencies include CARB's introduction of vehicle

standards and diesel anti-idling measures, the CEC's building and appliance efficiency standards, and the

Cal/EPA's green building initiative. The Climate Action Team also recommends future emission

reduction strategies, such as using only low-GWP refrigerants in new vehicles, developing ethanol as an


4.1 Air Quality


alternative fuel, reforestation, solar power initiatives for homes and businesses, and investor-owned

utility energy efficiency programs. According to the report, implementation of current and future

emission reduction strategies have the potential to achieve the goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05.

Assembly Bill 32

In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 32

(AB 32, Nuñez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor

Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide programto limit GHG emissions from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. CARB is responsible

for carrying out and developing the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the mandate of

AB 32—the reduction of California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (Health and Safety Code,section 38550)

The first action under AB 32 resulted in CARB’s adoption of a report listing three specific early-actionGHG emission reduction measures on June 21, 2007. On October 25, 2007, CARB approved an additional

six early-action GHG reduction measures under AB 32. These early-action GHG reduction measures are

to be adopted and enforced by January 1, 2010. The original three adopted early-action regulationsinclude:

a low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the “carbon intensity” of California fuels;

reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance to restrict thesale of ”do-it-yourself” automotive refrigerants; and

increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state-of-the-art methane capturetechnologies.

The additional six early-action regulations adopted on October 25, 2007 include:

reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and trailersthrough retrofit technology;

reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification;

reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry;

reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust removalproducts);

requirements that that all tune-up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire inflationas part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency; and

restrictions on the use of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from non-electricity sectors if viable alternativesare available.

4.1 Air Quality


As required under AB 32, on December 6, 2007, CARB approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions

inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was set at427 MMTCO2e; this constitutes an approximately 30 percent reduction below projected business-as-usual

conditions for year 2020. The inventory revealed that in 1990, transportation, with 35 percent of the state's

total emissions, was the largest single sector, followed by industrial emissions, 24 percent; importedelectricity, 14 percent; in-state electricity generation, 11 percent; residential use, 7 percent; agriculture,

5 percent; and commercial uses, 3 percent (these figures represent the 1990 values, compared toTable 4.1-3, which represents 2004 values). AB 32 does not require individual sectors to meet their

individual 1990 GHG emissions inventory; instead, the total statewide emissions are required to meet the

1990 threshold by 2020.

In addition to the 1990 emissions inventory, CARB also adopted regulations requiring the mandatory

reporting of GHG emissions for large facilities on December 6, 2007. The mandatory reporting regulations

require annual reporting from the largest facilities in the state, which account for approximately94 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and commercial stationary sources in California.

About 800 separate sources fall under the new reporting rules and include electricity generating facilities,

electricity retail providers and power marketers, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, cement plants,cogeneration facilities, and industrial sources that emit over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year from

on-site stationary combustion sources. Transportation sources, which account for 38 percent of

California’s total greenhouse gas emissions, are not covered by these regulations but will continue to betracked through existing means. Affected facilities will begin tracking their emissions in 2008, to be

reported beginning in 2009 with a phase-in process to allow facilities to develop reporting systems and

train personnel in data collection. Emissions for 2008 may be based on best available emission data.Beginning in 2010, however, emissions reporting requirements will be more rigorous and will be subject

to third-party verification. Verification will take place annually or every three years, depending on the

type of facility.

As indicated above, AB 32 also required CARB to adopt a scoping plan indicating how reductions in

significant GHG sources will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions.After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Proposed Scoping Plan released in June 2008,

CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:

expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliancestandards;

achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent;

developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiativepartner programs to create a regional market system;

4.1 Air Quality


establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughoutCalifornia and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;

adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, includingCalifornia’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and

creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warmingpotential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment toAB 32 implementation.

CARB has until January 1, 2011 to adopt the regulations needed to implement the Scoping Plan, and

implementation of individual measures must begin no later than January 1, 2012.

Senate Bill 1368

Two days after signing AB 32, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368, Perata) into

law. SB 1368 required the CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to develop and

adopt regulations for GHG emissions performance standards for the long-term procurement of electricity

by local publicly owned utilities. The CEC adopted its standard on May 23, 2007, and the CPUC adopted

its standard on January 25, 2007. SB 1368 includes measures that protect energy customers from financial

risks by allowing new capital investments in power plants with GHG emissions that are as low as or

lower than new combined-cycle natural gas plants, requiring imported electricity from out-of-state to

meet GHG performance standards in California, and requiring that the standards be developed and

adopted in a public process.46

Executive Order S-1-07

Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-01-07 (issued on January 18, 2007) requires a 10 percent or

greater reduction in the average fuel carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California regulated by

CARB by 2020. CARB identified the LCFS as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32, and the final

resolution (09-31) was issued on April 23, 2009.

Senate Bill 97

With respect to CEQA, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), which addresses GHG

analysis under CEQA, during the 2007 legislative session. The bill contains two components, the first of

which exempts from CEQA the requirement to assess GHG emissions for the following projects:

(a) transportation projects funded under the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port

Security Bond Act of 2006; and (b) projects funded under the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention

Bond Act of 2006.

46 The adopted SB 1368 regulations are available on the California Energy Commission's website athttp://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/regulations/index.html.

4.1 Air Quality


SB 97's second component confirmed that no CEQA guidelines then existed to advise agencies and

project applicants of whether a particular project may result in a potentially significant impact to globalclimate change. Accordingly, SB 97 required that (1) OPR, by July 1, 2009, develop and transmit to CNRA

guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions and their effects; and (2) CNRA adopt amendments to the

State CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010. (This second component of SB 97 is codified at Public ResourcesCode, section 21083.05.)

Notably, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a signing message when enacting SB 97 that is instructive asto the Governor's policy on global climate change, which includes a directive towards coordinating the

efforts of various agencies to efficiently and fairly achieve GHG emissions reductions:

Current uncertainty as to what type of analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is required under[CEQA] has led to legal claims being asserted which would stop these important infrastructureprojects. Litigation under CEQA is not the best approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions andmaintain a sound and vibrant economy. To achieve these goals, we need a coordinated policy, not apiecemeal approach dictated by litigation.

Office of Planning and Research Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change

In June 2008, OPR published a Technical Advisory entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate

Change Through CEQA (OPR Advisory). This guidance proposes a three-step analysis of GHG emissions:

1. Mandatory Quantification of GHG Project Emissions. The environmental impact analysis should includequantitative estimates of a project's GHG emissions from different types of emission sources. Theseestimates should include both construction-phase emissions, as well as completed operationalemissions, using one of a variety of available modeling tools.

2. Continued Uncertainty Regarding "Significance" of Project-Specific GHG Emissions. Each environmentaldocument should assess the significance of the project's impacts on climate change. The TechnicalAdvisory recognizes uncertainty regarding what GHG impacts should be determined to besignificant and encourages agencies to rely on the evolving guidance being developed in this area.Accordingly, OPR requested that CARB develop quantitative and qualitative significance criteria forthe analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA. Per the Technical Advisory, the environmental analysisshould describe a "baseline" of existing (pre-project) environmental conditions, and then add projectGHG emissions on to this baseline to evaluate whether impacts are significant.

3. Mitigation Measures. According to the Technical Advisory, "all feasible" mitigation measures or projectalternatives should be adopted if an impact is significant, defining feasibility in relation to scientific,technical, and economic factors. If mitigation measures cannot sufficiently reduce project impacts, theagency should adopt whatever measures are feasible and include a fact-based statement of overridingconsiderations explaining why additional mitigation is not feasible. OPR also identifies a menu ofGHG emissions mitigation measures, ranging from balanced "mixed use" master-planned projectdesigns to construction equipment and material selection criteria and practices.

4.1 Air Quality


In addition to this three-step process, the Technical Advisory contains more general policy-level

guidance. Finally, the Technical Advisory encourages agencies to develop standard GHG emissions

reduction and mitigation measures.

CARB Preliminary Draft Proposal for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds

In response to OPR's request, in October 2008, CARB released a draft proposal identifying CEQA

thresholds of significance for industrial, commercial and residential developments. The draft CARB

thresholds proposed a tiered framework for developing thresholds of significance that rely upon the

incorporation of a variety of performance measures to reduce GHG emissions associated with a project,

as well as a numerical threshold of significance above which a project must include detailed GHG

analysis in an EIR and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures. Although CARB proposed a

7,000-ton-per-year threshold for industrial projects, a numerical threshold for commercial and residential

projects was not proposed, and was said to be under development. As of this time, CARB has suspended

its work on CEQA thresholds.

Adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments

On December 30, 2009, following an extensive public outreach program, CNRA adopted amendments to

the State CEQA Guidelines that address GHG emissions and related issues. CNRA transmitted the adopted

amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31,

2009, and the amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

In its Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action (December 2009), CNRA observed:

Analysis of GHG emissions in a CEQA document presents unique challenges to lead agencies.Such analysis must be consistent with existing CEQA principles, however. Therefore, theAmendments comprise relatively modest changes to various portions of the existing CEQAGuidelines. Modifications address those issues where analysis of GHG emissions may differ insome respects from more traditional CEQA analysis. Other modifications clarify existing law thatmay apply both to analysis of GHG emissions as well as more traditional CEQA analyses.

(CNRA, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action [December 2009], p. 13.) The above excerpted

language is consistent with the overall spirit of the adopted State CEQA Guidelines language, which does

not bring about radical changes in CEQA analysis but seeks to affirm that traditional CEQA principles

extend to GHG emissions and global climate change.

4.1 Air Quality


With respect to the significance assessment, newly added State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4,

subdivision (b), provides:

A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing thesignificance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:

(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as comparedto the existing environmental setting;

(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agencydetermines applies to the project;

(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted toimplement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhousegas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through apublic review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution ofgreenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of aparticular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with theadopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

The amendments also provide that lead agencies should consider all feasible means of mitigating

greenhouse gas emissions that substantially reduce energy consumption or GHG emissions. These

potential mitigation measures may include carbon sequestration. If off-site or carbon offset mitigation

measure are proposed they must be part of reasonable plan of mitigation that the agency itself is

committed to implementing.

Senate Bill 375

The California Legislature passed SB 375 (Steinberg) on September 1, 2008. SB 375 requires CARB to set

regional greenhouse gas reduction targets after consultation with local governments. The target must

then be incorporated within that region’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is used for

long-term transportation planning, in a Sustainable Communities Strategy. SB 375 also requires each

region’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to be adjusted based on the Sustainable

Communities Strategy in its RTP. Additionally, SB 375 reforms the environmental review process to

create incentives to implement the strategy, especially transit priority projects. The Governor signed

SB 375 into law on September 30, 2008. CARB is not expected to issue regional GHG reduction targets to

local governments until 2010.

Energy Conservation Standards

Energy Conservation Standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were first adopted by

California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently

4.1 Air Quality


revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 governs energy consumed

by the built environment for commercial and residential buildings in California. This includes the

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, water heating, and some fixed lighting. (Non-

building energy use, or "plug-in" energy use, is not covered by Title 24.) The standards are updated

periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies

and methods. The 2008 Title 24 standards became effective on January 1, 2010, and are applicable to the

proposed project.

California's 2009 Appliance Efficiency Regulations were adopted by the California Energy Commission

on December 3, 2008, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on July 10, 2009. The

regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated

appliances.

In early January 2010, the California Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted the first-in-

the-nation mandatory statewide green building code—referred to as CALGREEN. Taking effect on

January 1, 2011, these comprehensive regulations will achieve major reductions in GHG emissions,

energy consumption and water use to create a greener California. CALGREEN will require that every

new building constructed in California reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of

construction waste from landfills and install low pollutant-emitting materials. It also requires separate

water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use, with a requirement for

moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects and mandatory inspections of energy

systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over

10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design

efficiencies. CARB estimates that the mandatory provisions will reduce GHG emissions by 3 million

metric tons equivalent in 2020.

California Climate Action Registry

The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) is a private non-profit organization formed by the State

of California and serves as a voluntary GHG registry to protect and promote early actions to reduce GHG

emissions by organizations. Senate Bill 1771 (SB 1771, Sher) formally established the CCAR with technical

changes made to the statute in SB 527, which finalized the structure for the California Registry. The

CCAR began with 23 charter members and currently has over 300 corporations, universities, cities and

counties, government agencies and environment organizations voluntarily measuring, monitoring, and

publicly reporting their GHG emissions using the CCAR protocols. The CCAR has published a General

Reporting Protocol, as well as project- and industry-specific protocols for landfill activities, livestock

4.1 Air Quality


activities, the cement sector, the power/utility sector, and the forest sector. The protocols provide the

principles, approach, methodology, and procedures required for participation in the CCAR.

CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change White Paper

The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared a white paper on CEQA

and Climate Change in January 2008. The white paper was intended to be used as a resource by lead

agencies when considering policy options and not as a guidance document. Specifically, the white paper

discusses three possible approaches to evaluating the significance of GHG emissions and possible

mitigation measures; however, CAPCOA does not endorse any particular approach. The three alternative

significance approaches are: (1) not establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions; (2) setting

the GHG emission threshold at zero; and (3) setting the GHG emission threshold at some non-zero level.

The white paper evaluates potential considerations and pitfalls associated with the three approaches. At

the end of the white paper, CAPCOA provides a list of potential mitigation measures and discusses each

in terms of emissions reduction effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and technical and logistical feasibility.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

The SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents requires that global

climate change impacts be addressed in CEQA documents as a cumulative impact. A project may

potentially be cumulatively significant through its incremental contribution combined with the

cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. The SBCAPCD has not adopted any thresholds for

measuring the significance of a project’s cumulative contribution to global climate change.47 However,

the SBCAPCD strongly recommends the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the

emissions of GHGs under long-term impacts.

Global Climate Change and CEQA

There are several unique challenges to analyzing global warming under CEQA, largely because of its

“global” nature. Typical CEQA analyses address local actions that have local—or, at most, regional—

impacts; global warming presents the considerable challenge of analyzing the relationship between local

47 With the exception of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), no air districtin the State of California has adopted a threshold of significance under CEQA for GHG emissions for non-industrial projects. The threshold adopted by the SJVUAPCD requires all new development projects toimplement performance standards or other measures that reduce emissions by at least 29 percent, whencompared to business-as-usual conditions. The 29 percent reduction includes GHG emission reductions achievedsince the 2002-2004 baseline period identified by the SJVUAPCD. Projects attaining a 29 percent reduction wouldbe determined to have a less-than-significant impact on global climate change under project-specific andcumulative analyses.

4.1 Air Quality


and global activities and the resulting potential, if any, for local and/or global environmental impacts.

Most environmental analyses examine the “project-specific” impacts that a particular project is likely to

generate. With regard to global warming, however, it is generally accepted that the contribution of an

individual project to global warming is so small that direct significant adverse impacts are not likely,

particularly for a project, as here, that is proposing an expansion of an existing Walmart store by

41,433 net new square feet.

The issue of global climate change is also fundamentally different from other areas of air quality impact

analysis, which are all linked to some region or area in which the impact is significant. A global climate

change analysis must be conducted on a global level, rather than the typical local or regional setting, and

requires consideration of not only emissions from the project under consideration, but also the extent of

the displacement, translocation, and redistribution of emissions. In the usual context, where air quality is

linked to a particular location or area, it is appropriate to consider the creation of new emissions in that

specific area to be an environmental impact whether or not the emissions are truly “new” emissions to

the overall globe. That being said, the approval of a new developmental plan or project, particularly a

non-residential project, does not necessarily create new automobile drivers—the primary source of a land

use project’s emissions. Rather, new land use projects may merely redistribute existing mobile

emissions;48 accordingly, the use of models that measure overall emissions increases without accounting

for existing emissions likely overstates the impact of the development project on global warming. This

makes an accurate analysis of GHG emissions substantially different from other air quality impacts,

where the “addition” of redistributed emissions to a new locale can make a substantial difference to

overall air quality.

Existing Air Quality Environment

Regional Air Quality

Air quality is determined primarily by the type and amount of contaminants emitted into the

atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the meteorological conditions. The SoCAB has

low mixing heights and light winds, which are conducive to the accumulation of air pollutants. The

48 For example, a subdivision of 500 homes generates 3,000 new trips per day, and those trips would be added tothe local streets and intersections. In the case of global warming, the trips that are associated with those same 500homes presumably emit roughly the same volume of GHGs in the City of Lompoc as they would if they weretraveling the same miles in Bakersfield or Des Moines, Iowa. As a result, a methodology which assumes that rawvehicle trip counts occurring within a project area will accurately predict change in global climate conditions asreliably as they will predict congestion at intersections is seriously flawed. While those trips certainly couldincrease the number of vehicles which will pass through local intersections, they will not increase the amount ofGHG emissions into the world’s atmosphere if those trips simply have been relocated from another location onthe planet.

4.1 Air Quality


determination of whether a region's air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing

contaminant levels in ambient air samples to national and state standards. The criteria pollutants for

which federal and state standards have been developed and that are most relevant to air quality planning

and regulation in the SoCAB are O3, NO2, CO, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and SO2. The state and

national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants and their effects on health are summarized in

Table 4.1-6, Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Table 4.1-6Ambient Air Quality Standards

Concentration/Averaging Time

Air Pollutant State StandardFederal Primary

Standard Most Relevant Health EffectsOzone1 0.07 ppm, 8-hr avg.

0.09 ppm, 1-hr. avg.

0.075 ppm, 8-hr avg.(3-year average ofannual 4th-highestdaily maximum)

(a) Pulmonary function decrements andlocalized lung edema in humans andanimals; (b) Risk to public health implied byalterations in pulmonary morphology andhost defense in animals; (c) Increasedmortality risk; (d) Risk to public healthimplied by altered connective tissuemetabolism and altered pulmonarymorphology in animals after long-termexposures and pulmonary functiondecrements in chronically exposed humans;(e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Propertydamage

Nitrogen Dioxide 0.18 ppm, 1-hr avg.

0.030 ppm, annualarithmetic mean


(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratorydisease and respiratory symptoms insensitive groups; (b) Risk to public healthimplied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonarybiochemical and cellular changes andpulmonary structural changes; and(c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration

RespirableParticulate Matter(PM10)

20 µg/m3, annualarithmetic mean

50 µg/m3, 24-hr avg.

150 µg/m3, 24-hravg.

(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitivepatients with respiratory or cardiovasculardisease; (b) Declines in pulmonary functiongrowth in children; and (c) Increased risk ofpremature death from heart or lung diseasesin the elderly

Fine ParticulateMatter (PM2.5)



(3-year average)

35 µg/m3, 24-hr avg.(3-year average of98th percentile)

(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitivepatients with respiratory or cardiovasculardisease; (b) Declines in pulmonary functiongrowth in children; and (c) Increased risk ofpremature death from heart or lung diseasesin the elderly

4.1 Air Quality


Concentration/Averaging Time

Air Pollutant State StandardFederal Primary

Standard Most Relevant Health EffectsCarbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm, 8-hr avg.

20 ppm, 1-hr avg.

9 ppm, 8-hr avg.

35 ppm, 1-hr avg.

(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and otheraspects of coronary heart disease;(b) Decreased exercise tolerance in personswith peripheral vascular disease and lungdisease; (c) Impairment of central nervoussystem functions; and (d) Possible increasedrisk to fetuses

Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24-hr avg.

0.25 ppm, 1-hr. avg.


0.14 ppm, 24-hr avg.

Bronchioconstriction accompanied bysymptoms which may include wheezing,shortness of breath, and chest tightnessduring exercise or physical activity inpersons with asthma

Lead2,3 1.5 µg/m3, 30-dayavg.

0.15 µg/m3, 3-monthrolling average

(a) Increased body burden; and(b) Impairment of blood formation and nerveconduction

Visibility-Reducing Particles

Reduction of visualrange to less than10 miles at relativehumidity less than70%, 8-hour avg.(10 AM–6 PM)

None Visibility impairment on days when relativehumidity is less than 70 percent

Sulfates 25 µg/m3, 24-hr avg. None (a) Decrease in ventilatory function;(b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms;(c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease;(d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation ofvisibility; and (f) Property damage

Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm, 1-hr avg. None Odor annoyance

Vinyl Chloride2 0.01 ppm, 24-hr avg. None Known carcinogen

µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.ppm = parts per million by volume.Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007 Air QualityManagement Plan, (2007) Table 3.1-1, p. 3.1 -3.1 On March 12, 2008, the US EPA revised the federal ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. The standard became effective on May

27, 2008.2 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects

determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control meas ures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for thesepollutants.

3 On October 15, 2008, the US EPA revised the federal lead standard from 1.5 µg/m3 to 0.15 µg/m3 based on a 3-month rolling average.

To identify ambient concentrations of the criteria air pollutants or concern, the SBCAPCD uses data from

a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the County. The Lompoc monitoring station at

128 South H Street is closest to the project site (approximately 1.3 miles west). This station is operated by

CARB and monitors O3, NO2, CO, SO2, and PM10 levels. The nearest station that monitors PM2.5 is located

at 906 S Broadway in the City of Santa Maria (approximately 20 miles north).

4.1 Air Quality


Table 4.1-7, Ambient Pollutant Concentrations, shows the concentrations measured between 2005 and

2007 at the nearest air quality monitoring stations in Lompoc and Santa Maria. As shown, the Lompocmonitoring station has not measured values above the state or federal standards for O3, NO2, CO, or SO2

over the past three years. The monitoring station has registered exceedances of the state standard for

PM10. PM2.5 levels taken at the Broadway Street monitoring station has not registered exceedances of thefederal standard over the past three years.

The primary sources of ozone precursor emissions are motor vehicles. Other sources in Santa BarbaraCounty include petroleum facilities and solvent use (paints, consumer products, and certain industrial

processes). Sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in the County include mineral quarries, grading, demolition,

agricultural tilling, road dust, vehicle exhaust, sea salt, and wind-blown dust.

Site-Specific Emissions

The project site is currently developed as a Walmart store located in the Diversified/Lompoc Corners

Shopping Center. The existing building includes an approximately 104,453-square-foot building as well

as an approximately 8,768-square-foot outdoor garden center. Existing emissions are associated withvehicle trips and existing area sources. The proposed project will be evaluated based on the net increase

in square footage of the buildings.

Sensitive Receptors

Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive topoor air quality because infants, the elderly, and people with health afflictions, especially respiratory

ailments, are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health problems than

the general public. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents(including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods, resulting in sustained

exposure to any pollutants present.

Sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site indicated in the project description include

the following:49

Residential developments located approximately 25 meters (75 feet) to the south of the project site.

Residential developments located approximately 500 meters (1,500 feet) to the east of the project site.

Olive Grove Charter School located approximately 250 meters (750 feet) to the southeast of the projectsite.

49 Distances were estimated from the nearest site boundary. Since the proposed project site includes parking areas,distances to the location of the Walmart building is significantly greater.

4.1 Air Quality


Table 4.1-7Ambient Pollutant Concentrations

YearPollutant Standards1, 2 2006 2007 2008

OZONE (O3)

Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.056 0.078 0.082


Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 0 0 0


Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard3 0.075 ppm 0 0 0

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)4


Annual average concentration monitored (ppm) 0.005 0.005 0.003


RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)5

Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 48.6 39.6 47.7

Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 21 20 22

Number of samples exceeding state standard 50 µg/m3 0 0 0

Number of samples exceeding federal standard 150 µg/m3 0 0 0

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)6

Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 13.7 18.7 15.3

Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 7.5 7.9 7.9

Number of samples exceeding federal standard6 35 µg/m3 0 0 0

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)



Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard 9 ppm 0 0 0

SULFUR DIOXIODE (SO2)


Number of samples exceeding 24-hour state standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 0

Number of samples exceeding federal 24-hour standard 0.14 ppm 0 0 0

n/a = not availableSource: California Air Resources Board, “Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2009.1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam).2 Federal and state standards are for the same time period as the maximum concentration measurement unless otherwise indicated.3 The 8-hour federal O3 standard was revised to 0.075 ppm in March 2008. The statistics shown are based on the previous standard of

0.08 ppm.4 The NO2 state standard was amended on February 22, 2007 to lower the 1-hour state standard from 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm and to establish a

new annual state standard of 0.030 ppm. These changes became effective March 20, 2008. Statistics shown are based on the standards ineffect at the time.

5 PM10 samples were collected every 6 days.6 The federal standard for PM2.5 was changed to 35 µg/m3, which became effective on December 17, 2006. Statistics shown are based on the

65 µg/m3 standard for years 2005-2006.

4.1 Air Quality


IMPACT ANALYSIS

Significance Thresholds

In order to assist in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the

State CEQA Guidelines identify criteria for conditions that may be deemed to constitute a substantial or

potentially substantial adverse change in physical conditions. Specifically, Appendix G of the State CEQA

Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) lists the following items to be considered when determining

whether a project may have a significant impact:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation;

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the projectregion is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and

Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

In order to facilitate the intent and significance determinations of the State CEQA Guidelines, the

SBCAPCD has adopted criteria for determining the level of significance for project-specific impacts

within its jurisdiction. Projects meeting any of the criteria discussed below are considered to have

significant air quality impact.

Construction Impact Thresholds

The SBCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds of significance for short-term construction

emissions. The SBCAPCD recommends that construction-related ROC, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions

be quantified in the environmental document. In practice, for determining the significance of construction

emissions, the SBCAPCD uses a threshold of 25 tons per year for any criteria air pollutant except CO.50 If

construction emissions would exceed this quantity, the SBCAPCD recommends that mitigation measures

be implemented to reduce construction emissions to a less than significant level. In addition, because the

County does not meet state standards for PM10, construction mitigation measures are required for

projects involving earthmoving activities of any size or duration. According to the SBCAPCD’s

50 Jammalamadaka, Vijaya, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Conversation with ImpactSciences, May 5, 2003.

4.1 Air Quality


guidelines, proper implementation of these measures is generally considered sufficient to reduce fugitive

dust emissions to a less than significant level, especially for smaller projects.51

Operational Impact Thresholds

SBCAPCD Operational Thresholds

Based on the SBCAPCD thresholds of significance, a project would not have a significant air quality effect

on the environment if operation of the project would:

emit (from all sources, both stationary sources and mobile sources) less than 240 pounds per day ofROC and NOX, and less than 80 pounds per day of PM10;

emit less than 25 pounds per day of ROC or NOX from motor vehicle trips only;

not cause or contribute to a violation of any state or federal ambient air quality standard (exceptozone);

not exceed the SBCAPCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the SBCAPCD Board(10 excess cancer cases in 1 million for cancer risk and a Hazard Index of more than one [1.0] fornon-cancer risk); and

be consistent with the adopted federal and state air quality plans for Santa Barbara County.

CO Hotspot Thresholds

Due to the relatively low background ambient CO levels in Santa Barbara County, CO “hotspot” analyses

are not required anymore.52

Toxic Air Contaminant Thresholds

Projects that have the potential to emit TACs could also result in significant air quality impacts. TACs are

defined under California law as air pollutants that have carcinogenic effects. As stated in the SBCAPCD

guidelines, a project would be considered to have a significant impact if it would result in a probability of

contracting cancer of more than 10 in 1 million. In addition, projects that create a Hazard Index for

non-cancer risks of more than one could have significant air quality impacts.

51 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in EnvironmentalDocuments, July 2008.


4.1 Air Quality


Objectionable Odor Thresholds

SBCAPCD Rule 303 (Nuisance), states in part that “[a] person shall not discharge from any source

whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or

annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or that endanger the comfort, repose,

health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause

injury or damage to business or property.” Projects that would emit pollutants associated with

objectionable odors in substantial concentrations could result in significant impacts if pollutants or

associated odors would create a nuisance, as defined above.

Project Consistency with the CAP

The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project may have significant impacts if it conflicts with or

obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. By definition, a project is consistent with the

CAP if its direct and indirect emissions have been accounted for in the CAP’s emissions growth

assumptions. Therefore, the project as a whole will be considered to be inconsistent if the project’s direct

and indirect emissions have not been accounted for in the CAP’s emissions growth assumptions.

Cumulative Impact Thresholds

A project is considered to have a less than significant cumulative impact if the following two criteria are

applicable:53

The project’s long-term emissions would not exceed the SBCAPCD project-specific thresholds; and

It can be demonstrated that the project was taken into account in the most recent CAP growthprojection.

Global Climate Change Impact Thresholds

At this time, there is no absolute consensus in the State of California among CEQA lead agencies

regarding the analysis of global climate change and the selection of significance criteria. In fact, numerous

organizations, both public, private and civic, have released advisories or guidance with recommendations

designed to assist decision makers in the evaluation of GHG emissions given the current uncertainty

regarding when emissions reach the point of significance. That being said, several options are available to

lead agencies.


4.1 Air Quality


First, lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by state or

regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change. (See State CEQA Guidelines section

15064.7(c).) However, to date, neither CARB nor SBCAPCD have adopted significance thresholds for

GHG emissions under CEQA. Accordingly, this option (i.e., reliance on an adopted threshold) is not

viable for the City of Lompoc.

Second, lead agencies may elect to conclude that the significance of greenhouse gas emissions under

CEQA is too speculative. However, the City has determined that this option is not viable due to the

import and focus on global climate change created by the various regulatory schemes and scientific

determinations cited in this section.

Third, lead agencies may elect to use a zero-based threshold, such that any emission of greenhouse gases

is significant and unavoidable. The City does not endorse this type of threshold because it may indirectly

truncate the analysis provided in CEQA documents and the mitigation commitments secured from new

development. Moreover, no state or regional agency with expertise in global climate change has endorsed

a zero-based threshold, which would likely result in a freeze on new development of any kind.

Fourth, lead agencies may elect to utilize their own significance criteria, so long as such criteria are

informed and supported by substantial evidence. Here, the City has elected to identify its own

significance criterion for the proposed project at this time. Recent amendments to the State CEQA

Guidelines adopted by CNRA and, specifically, the addition of State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4,

subdivision (b), informed the City's selection of a significance criterion. Section 15064.4(b) provides:

A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing thesignificance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:

(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as comparedto the existing environmental setting;

(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agencydetermines applies to the project;

(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted toimplement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhousegas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through apublic review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution ofgreenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of aparticular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with theadopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

4.1 Air Quality


Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines also has been revised to provide some guidance regarding the

criteria that may be used to assess whether a project's impacts on global climate change are significant.

The Appendix G environmental checklist asks whether a project would (1) generate greenhouse gas

emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or

(2) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases.54

Based on the above factors (and particularly the adopted addition of State CEQA Guidelines

section 15064.4, subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(3)), the City, as the lead agency for the proposed project, has

determined it is appropriate to rely on AB 32 and S-305 as benchmarks for purposes of this EIR and to

inform its judgment as to whether the proposed project's GHG emissions would result in a significant

impact. (See State CEQA Guidelines , section 15064, subd. (f)(1).) Accordingly, a project would not have a

significant effect on global climate change if:

the project's emissions would not impede compliance with AB 32's mandate to reduce GHGemissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and

the project's emissions would not impede compliance with Governor Schwarzenegger's goal, asexpressed in Executive Order S-3-05, to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by2050.

Construction Impacts

The overall construction period is conservatively assumed to last up to 12 months. Development of the

proposed project would require the demolition and removal of portions of the existing building. The

project site would then be prepared and graded to accommodate the additional building space. Grading

within the building pad area will include approximately 1,400 cubic yards (cy) of cut materials and the

importing of approximately 2,100 cy of additional fill materials. Grading within the building pad area

and for utility trenches may require rough grading up to depths of 4 feet below the ground surface (bgs).

Finally, the additional building space would be constructed. Demolition, grading and building activities

would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as loaders, dozers, and other related

equipment such as cranes. On-road heavy-duty trucks and construction worker commute vehicles would

also generate criteria air pollutant emissions. All heavy-duty equipment would be contained on site over

the duration of construction activities to prevent disruption to the surrounding commercial and

residential uses. While construction activities will vary depending on the phase of the proposed project,

most of the equipment will be used early in the process and only for a short period of time.

54 Neither the SCAPCD, City of Lompoc nor County of Santa Barbara have adopted any applicable plans (e.g.,climate action plan) against which the project's emissions could be measured.

4.1 Air Quality


In the interest of public disclosure, the SBCAPCD recommends quantification of construction-related

emissions of ROC, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SBCAPCD has not established any thresholds of

significance for short-term construction emissions, but informally uses a threshold of 25 tons per year for

evaluating the significance of construction emissions of these pollutants.

Estimates of emissions associated with construction of the proposed project have been calculated using

the URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software (Version 9.2.4). URBEMIS2007 estimates

construction emissions on a daily basis for the following construction-related activities: demolition;

construction worker trips; off-road construction equipment, mobile equipment; and architectural coatings

(evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings).

The annual emissions due to construction of the proposed project are presented in Table 4.1-8, Estimated

Project Construction Emissions. These estimates are based on the expected location, size, and

development of the proposed project, and include measures consistent with the City’s dust abatement

program. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day depending upon the level and type of

activity, silt content, and the prevailing weather. While much of this airborne dust would settle out on, or

near, the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing existing particulate

levels within the surrounding area. The City’s dust abatement program substantially reduces fugitive

dust emissions.

In 1997, concurrent with the adoption of the existing general plan, the City of Lompoc adopted standard

air quality conditions that it imposes on new projects. These conditions target and are intended to reduce

short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The City’s PM10 abatement

program is patterned after the SBCAPCD-recommended dust control measures. The City requires project

applicants to implement the following:

1. A dust abatement program that requires construction contractors to implement the followingmeasures:

Sprinkle all construction areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice a day, duringexcavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Construction sites shall be watered and all equipment cleaned in the morning and evening toreduce particulate and dust emissions.

Cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similar materials, or surround them with windbreaks.

Cover trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces or have adequatefreeboard to prevent spillage.

4.1 Air Quality


Post signs that limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and over disturbed soils to 10 miles perhour during construction.

Soil binders shall be spread on construction sites, on unpaved roads, and on parking areas;ground cover shall be re-established through seeding and watering.

Sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce re-suspension ofdust through vehicle movement over those surfaces.

Require the construction contractor to designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a

comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary. The implementation of these

measures were included as mitigation measures and assumed in the air quality modeling and are

reflected in Table 4.1-8.

Table 4.1-8Estimated Project Construction Emissions

Maximum Emissions in Tons per Year1

Emission Source ROC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2010Demolition 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.01

Grading 0.03 0.30 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.03

Building Construction 0.15 1.07 0.98 0.00 0.07 0.06

Architectural Coating 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

City Required ReductionMeasures N/A N/A N/A N/A (0.04) (0.01)

Total Emissions 0.68 1.47 1.21 0.00 0.17 0.09

SBCAPCD Guidelines: 25 25 NT NT NT NT

Exceeds Guidelines? NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2009. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.1.Note: N/A = Not ApplicableNote: NT = No Threshold1 PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions reflect required fugitive dust mitigation measures.

Diesel-powered equipment and trucks will be used during the construction period. As noted previously,

California has designated diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant. Accordingly, the emissions

from diesel equipment and trucks would release a toxic air contaminant that has the potential to result in

adverse health impacts. The project site is relatively small, and the construction phase would involve

limited demolition and grading using only a few units of diesel equipment. The overall period to

construct buildings would only last approximately 12 months.

4.1 Air Quality


In addition, the State of California requires that idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks during loading and

unloading be limited to 5 minutes. Due to the relatively short construction period, limited use of diesel

equipment, and implementation of the measures listed above, it is not anticipated that the construction

related diesel emissions would cause health impacts above the SBCAPCD significance thresholds.

Overall, emissions generated during the construction of the proposed project would be well under the

SBCAPCD guidelines. Construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts

Project Site Operational Emissions

Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of normal

day-to-day activity on the project site after occupation. Stationary emissions would be generated by the

consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, landscaping equipment, and

architectural coatings. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to, from, and

within the project site. Daily operational emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model. Trip

generation rates used in URBEMIS2007 were obtained from data contained in the traffic report for the

proposed project. The estimated emissions are based upon the buildout of the proposed project.

Table 4.1-9, Estimated Project Operational Emissions, shows the anticipated operational emissions for

the proposed project.

As is identified in Table 4.1-9, below, operational emissions generated by the project site after buildout

would not exceed the SBCAPCD thresholds for all sources, both stationary and mobile, generated by the

proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not exceed the new vehicular trips threshold of

25 pounds per day for ROC and NOX. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than

significant operational impacts on local and regional air quality related to this criterion.

Toxic Air Contaminants

The building expansion associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to emit TACs in

appreciable quantities. The expansion of store space is anticipated to require daily truck trips up to two

additional heavy-duty trucks and up to three medium-duty trucks that may emit diesel particulate matter

(DPM). Given the limited number of additional truck trips, the health impacts from DPM emissions

associated with these additional trucks are not anticipated to be significant. Stationary equipment or

processes that emit a substantial amount of TACs are required to be permitted by the SBCAPCD. No such

equipment or processes are proposed for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not

4.1 Air Quality


be subjected to increased health impacts relative to the background levels and no significant impacts with

respect to the criteria listed above are expected to occur.

Table 4.1-9Estimated Project Operational Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per DayEmissions Source ROC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Summertime (Smog Season) Net Emissions1

Operational (Mobile) Sources 13.36 18.91 160.66 0.10 19.89 3.82

Area/Stationary Sources 0.41 0.46 1.92 0.00 0.01 0.01

Summertime Emissions Total 13.77 19.37 162.58 0.10 19.90 3.83SBCAPCD Threshold 240 240 NT NT 80 NT

Mobile Source Threshold 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Wintertime (Non-Smog Season) Net Emissions2


Architectural Coatings 0.29 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wintertime Emissions Total 15.41 22.60 169.89 0.10 19.89 3.82SBCAPCD Threshold 240 240 NT NT 80 NT

Mobile Source Threshold 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates December 2009. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.1.Note: N/A = Not ApplicableNote: NT = No Threshold AvailableTotals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.1 “Summertime Emissions” are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31).2 “Wintertime Emissions” are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30).

Objectionable Odors

Typical sources of objectionable odor include landfills, rendering plants, chemical plants, agricultural

uses, wastewater treatment plants, and refineries. The proposed project does not include these land uses

and is not located adjacent to or in proximity to any of these uses. Therefore, impacts with respect to

objectionable odors would be less than significant.

Project Consistency with the CAP

The 2002 Annual Emission Inventory contains data on NOX and ROC in Santa Barbara County and the

Outer Continental Shelf and is the most current inventory available. This inventory was used in order to

4.1 Air Quality


forecast future emission levels and forms the basis of the 2007 CAP. The CAP relies primarily on the land

use and population projections provided by the SBCAG and CARB on-road emissions forecast as a basis

for vehicle emission forecasting.

The proposed project is consistent with the CAP if its direct and indirect emissions have been accounted

for in the CAP’s emissions growth assumption. The CAP’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for the

County as a whole are reliant on population projections provided by SBCAG. SBCAG generates

population projections based on the population projections contained in city general plans. In this case,

SBCAG has utilized population projections contained in the City of Lompoc’s General Plan.

The proposed project would not result in a direct population increase, as the proposed project does not

contain any residential units. Although the proposed project would increase employment due to the

expansion of the Walmart store, this employment can be filled by current City of Lompoc residents. Any

indirect increase in population growth would only be a fraction of the growth forecasts. Therefore, the

proposed project would also be consistent with the 2007 CAP emission projections. As such, impacts

would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

A project that does not exceed the SBCAPCD project-specific thresholds and that is consistent with the

CAP is considered to have a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. As stated previously, the

net emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the SBCAPCD project-specific

thresholds and the project is consistent with the 2007 CAP. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less

than significant.

Global Climate Change Impacts

Set forth below is the analysis for each of the three considerations delineated in State CEQA Guidelines

section 15064.4(b). In addition, the City is establishing its own threshold of significance in connection

with Consideration No. 2.55

55 It should be noted that the proposed project is not anticipated to be subject to significant adverse effects due toclimate change. For example, because the project site is located well outside of a low-lying coastal area, theproject would not likely be subject to sea level rise. Potential impacts to biological resources, water supply andfire hazards are analyzed in other EIR sections.

4.1 Air Quality


Consideration No. 1 The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas

emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

Future development projects result in GHG emissions if they increase electricity and natural gas

consumption, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), water use, and solid waste generation. By incorporating the

project design features that have been recommended for adoption as PDF 4.1-2 to PDF 4.1-20, the

proposed project would not significantly increase the consumption of energy resources that contribute to

greenhouse gas emissions and would not result in a significant cumulative impact to global climate

change.

Emissions Inventory Methodology

During construction, the consumption of fuel by the on-site equipment would generate GHG emissions.

The URBEMIS2007 model, which can estimate the daily and annual amount of CO2 emissions generated

by on-site equipment, was used to estimate the amount of construction-related GHG emissions associated

with the proposed project. The emissions in this category include the use of construction equipment

during grading, construction and paving; haul truck trips to the site; construction worker trips to the site;

and vendor trips to the site.

During operation of the proposed project, the consumption of fossil fuels to generate electricity and to

provide heating and hot water for the on-site land uses, the consumption of water, solid waste

generation, as well as the consumption of fuel by on-road mobile vehicles associated with the proposed

project, also would result in GHG emissions. As such, in generating the GHG emissions estimate for the

proposed project, the future fuel consumption rates for the proposed project by these sources were

estimated based on the proposed retail square footage. Natural gas and electricity demand factors

derived from the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook were used to project fuel consumption rates for

the building. Solid waste generation rates and factors were derived from California Integrated Waste

Management Board’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Table for Commercial Establishments. And, water use

rates were derived from the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation tables and reports.

The GHG emission factors from the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Protocol for natural gas

and electricity were then applied to the respective consumption rates in order to calculate annual GHG

emissions in metric tons. GHG emissions from water consumption were determined by evaluating the

water-related energy use identified in the CEC’s California’s Water-Energy Relationship document,

including water conveyance, treatment, distribution and wastewater treatment. The solid waste emission

rate was obtained from the US EPA’s Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle

Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. The on-road mobile vehicle miles per day and vehicle fleet mix with the

4.1 Air Quality


proposed project were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 computer model. The GHG emission factors

from the CCAR Protocol for motor vehicles were applied to calculate annual GHG emissions in metric

tons.

Emissions Inventory

In summary, the proposed project would generate carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions,

as detailed in Table 4.1-10, Proposed Project GHG Emissions. The Table 4.1-10 inventory estimate

assumes that no GHG emission reducing features are incorporated into the project design.

Table 4.1-10Proposed Project GHG Emissions

Emission SourceCarbon Dioxide Emissions

(tons per year)Methane Emissions

(tons per year)Nitrous Oxide Emissions

(tons per year)Construction 155.79 0.00 0.00

Natural GasConsumption

84.75 0.008 0.00016

ElectricityGeneration

200.28 0.008 0.002

Solid WasteGeneration

(4.18) 2.93 0.00

Water Consumption 6.58 0.00027 0.00007

Motor Vehicles 1,633.03 0.0036 0.0019

Total DuringConstruction Year

155.79 0.00 0.00

Total DuringOperational Years

1,920.46 2.95 0.00437

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, March 2010. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix 4.1.

Of note, the vast majority of emissions associated with the proposed project are mobile source emissions.

The project applicant has little to no control over mobile source fuel and engine efficiencies, or the travel

habits of future patrons of the proposed project. Therefore, the project applicant is unable to appreciably

reduce the GHG emissions resulting from that source. However, mobile sources are reasonably

anticipated to be subject to increasingly stringent federal and state regulatory standards governing fuel

efficiency (including the carbon content of fuels) and engine efficiency, as highlighted above, which will

reduce emissions from that source category.

4.1 Air Quality


Hydrofluorocarbons

The proposed project may emit a small amount of HFC emissions from leakage and service of

refrigeration and air conditioning equipment and from disposal at the end of the life of the equipment.56

However, Walmart currently uses R404a refrigerant for all refrigeration equipment and, for air

conditioning units, Walmart uses R410a refrigerant exclusively. R410a refrigerant results in lower

emissions of HFCs, as compared to the R-22 refrigerant still used by many companies in their air

conditioning units.

Perfluorocarbons, Sulfur Hexafluoride, and Nitrogen Trifluoride

Perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride are typically used in industrial

applications, none of which would be used by the proposed project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that

the proposed project would emit any meaningful amount of these greenhouse gases.

Emission Reducing Project Design Features

As mentioned above, the proposed project incorporates a number of project design features that would

reduce project-related GHG emissions, many of which are consistent with GHG reduction strategies

developed by groups and public agencies, such as ARB, CAPCOA and the California Attorney General

Office. A summary of these project design features is presented in Table 4.1-11, below.

Table 4.1-11Summary of Project Design Features Resulting in GHG Emissions

Measure ConsistencyMeasure Description ARB AG CAPCOA

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energymanagementsystem

The project's energy management system enables theHome Office in Bentonville, Arkansas to monitor energyusage, analyze refrigeration temperatures, observeHVAC and lighting performance, and adjust lighting,temperature, and/or refrigeration set points 24 hours perday, seven days a week.

X X X

Occupancysensors in non-sales floor areas

The project would utilize sensors to detect activity in aroom and automatically turn off the lights when thespace is unoccupied.

X X

56 US Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment ofEmissions and Sinks, 2002.

4.1 Air Quality


Measure ConsistencyMeasure Description ARB AG CAPCOAEnergy efficientlighting

All lighting required by the project would include T-8fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts, which are themost efficient lighting on the market. In addition, theentire store would use only "low-mercury" lamps, whichare not considered to be a hazardous material and areconsidered to be very "green friendly".

X X

Cool roof The project would feature a "white" membrane roofinstead of the more common applications, which are of adarker color.

X X X

Energy efficientheating andcooling system

The project would use "super" high efficiency packagedHVAC units that exceed the industry standard. Whilethe industry standard Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) is9.0, the proposed new units are rated at approximately12.1 (for 20-ton units) to 14.3 (for 3-ton units), which isapproximately 4–17 percent more efficient than requiredby California Title 24.

X X X

Activede-humidifica-tion

The project would include an active dehumidification,dedicated outdoor air system that allows Walmart tooperate the store at a higher temperature, use lessenergy, and allow the refrigeration system to operatemore efficiently.

X X X

Refrigerationfilm

The project would include freezer doors with a film thatcombats condensation and requires no energy, unlikeheating systems that are typically used to combatcondensation.

X X X

LEDs for allexternallyilluminatedbuilding signage

The project would utilize light emitting diodes (LED) forall externally illuminated signage, which is over 70percent more energy-efficient than fluorescentillumination. With lamp life ranging to 100,000 hours,using LEDs provides an extended life span of 12 to 20plus years. This significantly reduces the need tomanufacture and dispose of fluorescent lamps. For theWalmart building, LED lighting will be used in all lowtemperature refrigerated cases.

X X

Educateemployees onenergy efficiency

The project applicant would provide information onenergy reduction to employees.

X X

WATER CONSERVATION

Water-efficientlandscaping

The project would use water-efficient landscaping in theparking areas.

X X X

Water-efficientfixtures andappliances

The project's new restroom sinks would include sensor-activated low-flow faucets. The existing restrooms alsowould be remodeled to include those new faucets.

X X X

4.1 Air Quality


Measure ConsistencyMeasure Description ARB AG CAPCOARestrictedwateringmethods

The project would restrict watering methods byprohibiting systems that apply water to non-vegetatedsurfaces and control runoff. In addition, the projectwould restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoorsurfaces and vehicles.

X X X

Educateemployees onwatermanagement

The project applicant would provide education aboutwater conservation and available programs andincentives.

X X

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTReducedconcrete use

Cement production is estimated to produce 7 percent ofall greenhouse gases. The project would include up to 25percent fly ash in the exterior concrete mixes.Additionally, up to 40 percent of the mix can be acombination of fly ash and ground granulated blastfurnace slag to reduce the amount of cement used for thestore.

Reuse andrecycleconstruction anddemolition waste

The project would be built with approximately 96percent recycled steel.

X X X

Encouragerecycling

The project would provide interior and exterior storageareas for recyclables and green waste and adequaterecycling containers located in public areas.

X X X

Educateemployees onwaste reductionand recycling

The project applicant would provide education andpublicity about reducing waste and available recyclingservices.

X X

TRANSPORTATIONEncourage non-motorized travel

The project would create travel routes that ensure thatdestinations may be reached conveniently by publictransportation, bicycling or walking. In addition, theproject would provide adequate bicycle parking nearbuilding entrances to promote cyclist safety, security,and convenience.

X X

Enforce limits onidling time

The project applicant would limit idling time forcommercial vehicles, including delivery andconstruction vehicles.

X

Notes:ARB - California Air Resources Board, AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2009.AGO - California Attorney General's Office, Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, 2010.CAPCOA - California Air Pollution Control Officer Association, CEQA and Climate Change White Paper, 2008.X – Measure is identified in guidance or consistent with goal.Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, March 2010.

4.1 Air Quality


The project's GHG emissions, after incorporation of project design features summarized above, are

presented in Table 4.1-12. The results represent a conservative estimate of GHG emission reductions as

only those project design features that were readily quantifiable were accounted for in this analysis.

Table 4.1-12GHG Emissions Reductions from Project Design Features (PDFs)

Emission Source

CO2e withoutPDFs

(tons per year)

CO2e withPDFs

(tons per year) Quantified PDFPercent Reduction

from PDFConstruction 155.79 155.79 None --

Natural GasConsumption

84.97 71.96 Energy efficient heatingand cooling system

15.3%

ElectricityGeneration

201.15 173.72 Energy efficient lighting;Energy efficient heating

and cooling system

13.6%

Solid WasteGeneration

57.31 28.65 Encourage recycling 50%

Water Consumption 6.61 5.16 Water-efficient fixturesand appliances

21.8%

Motor Vehicles 1,633.69 1,560.18 Encourage non-motorized travel

4.5%

Total DuringConstruction Year

155.79 155.79 N/A 0%

Total DuringOperational Years

1,983.7 1,839.68 N/A 7.3%

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, March 2010.

As shown in Table 4.1-12, the project design features would reduce emissions by approximately 144

MTCO2e, or approximately 7.3 percent. In addition, the proposed project would comply with all

regulations adopted pursuant to AB 32 or any other applicable law, which likely would result in further

reductions. Therefore, while the project would increase emissions relative to existing, on-site emission

levels, the impact of those additional emissions would not be significant.

Consideration No. 2 Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead

agency determines applies to the project.

Given that neither CARB nor SBAPCD has established a significance threshold for greenhouse gases, the

City has determined to apply the following threshold to the project:

4.1 Air Quality


The extent to which the project could help or hinder attainment of the state’s mandate to reducegreenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as stated in AB 32, and the state's goalto reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 as stated inExecutive Order S-3-05. A project may be considered to help attainment of the state’s mandateand goal by being consistent with adopted statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits or the plans,programs, recommendations and regulations adopted to implement AB 32 and Executive OrderS-3-05.

The proposed project would not hinder attainment of the state’s mandate to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 or the state's goal to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by

2050. Instead, as demonstrated above, the project incorporates green design features that would serve to

reduce emissions. In addition, the proposed project is not in conflict with any regulation or law adopted

pursuant to AB 32 or Executive Order S-3-05, and no waiver from any adopted regulation or law is being

sought in connection with development and operation of the project.

From a qualitative standpoint, the proposed project is not opening up a new territory for development,

drawing mostly new trips, or substantially lengthening existing trips. Rather, it would provide an

opportunity for nearby residents to shop closer to home at an expanded store. While the proposed project

may increase VMT for some customers, it is anticipated that most of the trips would be coming from the

immediate area. Given the location of other Walmart stores in Santa Maria and Arroyo Grande,

customers that would otherwise travel to these locations would now have a store closer to their home.

Accordingly, development of the proposed project likely would reduce GHG emissions from vehicles

that would otherwise have to travel further to obtain the amenities provided by the proposed project. In

addition, the proposed project would improve the region’s building stock by incorporating GHG-

emissions reduction measures that would substantially improve upon most existing buildings, which

may be retired in the future and replaced by buildings such as the proposed project.

With respect to Executive Order S-03-05, as of 2004, California was emitting 12 percent more GHG

emissions than in 1990. For California to emit 80 percent less than it emitted in 1990, the emissions would

need to be only 18 percent of the 2004 emissions. Accounting for a population growth from 35,840,000

people in 2004 to approximately 55,000,000 people in 2050, the emissions per capita would have to be

only 12 percent of what they were in 2004. This means 88 percent reductions in per capita GHG emissions

from today's emissions intensities must be realized in order to achieve California's 2050 GHG goals.

CARB's Scoping Plan provides insight as to how it anticipates California will achieve the 2050 reduction

goal in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05:

Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent will require California to develop newtechnologies that dramatically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and shift into a landscape ofnew ideas, clean energy, and green technology. The measures and approaches in this plan are

4.1 Air Quality


designed to accelerate this necessary transition, promote the rapid development a cleaner, lowcarbon economy, create vibrant livable communities, and improve the ways we travel and movegoods throughout the state.

…

[T]he measures needed to meet the 2050 goal are too far in the future to define in detail

(Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework For Change, California Air Resources Board (adopted

December 2008), p. ES-2; emphasis added.)

The CEC and CARB also have published an alternative fuels plan that identifies57 “challenging but

plausible ways to meet 2050 [transportation] goals.” The main finding from this analysis is that reducing

today's average per capita driving miles by about 5 percent (or back to 1990 levels), in addition to the

decarbonization strategies, would achieve Governor Schwarzenegger's goal to reduce transportation-

related emissions to 80 percent below the 1990 levels. 58

Setting aside the CEC and CARB's preliminary plans with respect to the transportation sector, significant

and drastic changes will need to be made across every economic sector to reduce emissions to 80 percent

below 1990 levels by 2050. In light of the uncertainties regarding the specific reduction strategies and

methods needed for California to achieve the 2050 reduction goal identified in Governor

Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05, the impact of the proposed project on the 2050 reduction goal

may be too speculative to assess at this time. (See State CEQA Guidelines, section 15145.) That being said,

the GHG reducing design features of the proposed project indicate that the project would help place the

state on the right track towards achieving the 2050 reduction goal.

In summary, the proposed project would not hinder achievement of the AB 32 reduction mandate or the

Executive Order S-3-05 reduction goal; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

57 See State Alternative Fuels Plan, California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board, availableonline at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-011/CEC-600-2007-011-CMF.PDF (lastvisited February 11, 2009).

58 State Alternative Fuels Plan at pp. 67-68.

4.1 Air Quality


Consideration No. 3 The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements

adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or

mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements

must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review

process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the

project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions.

The project would comply with existing law, including any applicable regulations or requirements

adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse

gas emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The project applicant has agreed to incorporate the following project design features as mitigation

measures. With implementation of these PDFs, the project would not result in significant climate change

impacts.

PDF 4.1-1 A dust abatement program shall be prepared and implemented during all construction

activities occurring on the project site. The following measures shall be included in the

dust abatement program:

Sprinkle all construction areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice aday, during excavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitivedust emissions.

Construction sites shall be watered and all equipment cleaned in the morning andevening to reduce particulate and dust emissions.

Cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similar materials, or surround them withwindbreaks.

Cover trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces or haveadequate freeboard to prevent spillage.

Post signs that limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and over disturbed soils to10 miles per hour during construction.

Soil binders shall be spread on construction sites, on unpaved roads, and on parkingareas; ground cover shall be re-established through seeding and watering.

Sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reducere-suspension of dust through vehicle movement over those surfaces.

4.1 Air Quality


PDF 4.1-2 The Walmart building shall be equipped with an energy management system that is

monitored and controlled from the Home Office in Bentonville, Arkansas in order to

enable Walmart to monitor energy usage, analyze refrigeration temperatures, observe

HVAC and lighting performance, and adjust lighting, temperature, and/or refrigeration

set points 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

PDF 4.1-3 The Walmart building shall include:

Occupancy sensors shall be installed in non-sales floor areas. These sensors detectactivity in a room and automatically turn off the lights when the space is unoccupied;and

All lighting shall utilize T-8 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts in order toreduce the energy load by approximately 15 to 20 percent; and

Non-hazardous, “low-mercury” lamps shall be used, and recycled (as appropriateand necessary).

PDF 4.1-4 The proposed project shall install light colored “cool” roofs in order to lower the

“cooling” load by about 8 percent.

PDF 4.1-5 The project applicant shall provide information on energy reduction to employees.

PDF 4.1-6 The Walmart building shall use “super” high efficiency packaged HVAC units rated at

an Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) of approximately 12.1 (for 20-ton units) to 14.3 (for 3-ton

units), which is approximately 4 to 17 percent more efficient than required by California

Title 24.. In addition, the Walmart building shall include an active dehumidification,

dedicated outdoor air system that allows Walmart to operate the store at a higher

temperature, use less energy, and allow the refrigeration system to operate more

efficiently.

PDF 4.1-7 Freezer doors shall have a film that combats condensation and requires no energy.

PDF 4.1-8 The project shall install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for all externally illuminated

building signage and in all low temperature refrigerated cases, which are over 70 percent

more energy-efficient than fluorescent illumination. With lamp life ranging to 100,000

hours, using LEDs provides an extended life span of 12 to 20 plus years, and significantly

reduces the need to manufacture and dispose of fluorescent lamps.

4.1 Air Quality


PDF 4.1-9 The project shall use poured concrete with up to 25 percent fly ash in the exterior

concrete mixes, and up to 40 percent of the mix as a combination of fly ash and ground

granulated blast furnace slag.

PDF 4.1-10 The project shall use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.

PDF 4.1-11 The project shall use water-efficient landscaping in the parking areas.

PDF 4.1-12 All new and existing restroom sinks shall include sensor-activated low-flow faucets.

PDF 4.1-13 The project shall use R404a for the refrigeration equipment and R410a refrigerant for air

conditions.

PDF 4.1-14 The project shall restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to

non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.

PDF 4.1-15 The project shall restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.

PDF 4.1-16 The project applicant shall provide education about water conservation and available

programs and incentives.

PDF 4.1-17 The project shall: (1) reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but

not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard); (2) use

approximately 96 percent recycled steel in building construction; and (3) provide interior

and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling

containers located in public areas.

PDF 4.1-18 The project applicant shall provide education and publicity about reducing waste and

available recycling services.

PDF 4.1-19 The project shall create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached

conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking.

PDF 4.1-20 The project shall provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote

cyclist safety, security, and convenience.

PDF 4.1-21 The project shall limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and

construction vehicles.

4.1 Air Quality


LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

Air Quality (Construction and Operation)

Overall, emissions generated during the construction of the proposed project would be well under the

SBCAPCD guidelines; and, therefore, would be less than significant. Additionally, as shown above,

operational emissions generated by the proposed project after buildout would not exceed the SBCAPCD

thresholds for all sources, both stationary and mobile. In addition, the proposed project would not exceed

the new vehicular trips threshold of 25 pounds per day for ROC and NOX. Therefore, the proposed

project would result in less than significant operational impacts on local and regional air quality related

to this criterion.

Additionally, the proposed project would not be subjected to increased health impacts relative to TACs,

and impacts with respect to objectionable odors would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in a direct population increase, as the proposed project does not

contain any residential units. Any indirect increase in population growth would only be a fraction of the

growth forecasts; therefore, the proposed project would also be consistent with the 2007 CAP emission

projections, and impacts would be less than significant.

A project that does not exceed the SBCAPCD project-specific thresholds and that is consistent with the

CAP is considered to have a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. Because the proposed

project’s net emissions would not exceed the SBCAPCD project-specific thresholds and the project is

consistent with the 2007 CAP, cumulative impacts would also be less than significant.


The proposed project would interfere neither with the state’s mandate to reduce GHG emissions to 1990

levels by the year 2020 nor the state's goal to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


4.2 NOISE

INTRODUCTION

This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses the potential noise and groundborne vibration

impacts that could result from the development of the Walmart Expansion Project. The information and analysis

presented in this section of the EIR is based on the noise study prepared for the project by Christopher A. Joseph &

Associates in December 2009. Refer toAppendix 4.2 of this EIR for a copy of this study. Noise prediction modeling

conducted in this analysis utilized the traffic and circulation study prepared for this EIR.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

In advance of presenting the existing and future noise environments, and the thresholds of significance

used in this document, plans and policies that pertain to the noise conditions affecting and affected by the

proposed project include (1) the State of California, Department of Health Services, Environmental Health

Division Guidelines for Noise and Land Use Compatibility; (2) the City of Lompoc General Plan; and

(3) the City of Lompoc Municipal Code.

California Department of Health Services

The State of California Department of Health Services’ Environmental Health Division published

recommended guidelines for mobile source noise and land use compatibility in February 1976. Each

jurisdiction is required to consider these guidelines when developing its general plan noise element and

determining the acceptable noise levels within its community. The City of Lompoc utilizes elements of

these guidelines when assessing a land use’s compatibility with motor vehicle noise sources. In addition,

the City has incorporated the state noise/land use compatibility guidelines into its general plan (as

discussed in the following subsection).

City of Lompoc General Plan

The City of Lompoc General Plan contains noise guidelines and policies that establish acceptable noise

levels for different land uses, as shown in Table 4.2-1, Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.

The general plan states that the maximum exterior sound level acceptable for commercial and industrial

areas, specifically, retail is 65 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level);

and for residential areas, specifically, single-family is 60 dB(A) CNEL. The maximum acceptable interior

noise level for retail is 55 dB(A) CNEL and single-family residential uses is 45 dB(A) CNEL.

4.2 Noise


Implementation measures in the Lompoc General Plan Noise Element also require construction activities

to be scheduled between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays, and between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on

Saturdays.

Table 4.2-1Interior and Exterior Noise Standards

Land Use CNELCategories Uses Interior Exterior

Residential Single-Family, Duplex, Multi-Family, Mobile Home 45 60

Commercial andIndustrial

Retail

MotelProfessional Offices, Movie Theater, AuditoriumManufacturing, Utilities, Warehousing, Agriculture

55

454565

65

606575

Community Facility Hospital, School, Nursing Home, Church, Library,Civic Offices, Parks

45 65

Open Space Passive Outdoor Recreation -- 60

Source: Lompoc General Plan.1 Interior living areas exclude bathrooms, closets, and corridors.2 Exterior areas are limited to private yards or patios of residential uses; restaurant patios; motel recreation areas; office, theater, or hospital

patios or assembly areas; school playgrounds; nursing home, library, or civic office assembly areas; and park picnic areas.3 If achievement of the interior noise standards requires that windows and doors remain closed, air conditioning or mechanical ventilation is

required.4 In areas affected by aircraft noise, the standard is 65 CNEL with the stipulation that the noise level exclusive of the aircraft -generated noise

cannot exceed 60 CNEL.

The following policies from the General Plan Noise Element are applicable to the proposed project:

Policy 1.1 The City shall require each land use to maintain noise levels at their property line

in compliance with City standards.

Policy 1.2 The City shall place a priority upon control of noise at the property line.

Policy 2.1 The City shall use the noise standards presented in table entitled “Interior and

Exterior Noise Standards” (Table 4.2-1) in determining land use designations

and maximum allowable for new developments.

Policy 2.2 The City shall require acoustical studies for new development projects in areas

where noise levels are anticipated by the City to be within five CNEL of the noise

standard or greater than the noise standard for the project land use(s) under

existing or future conditions. Noise attenuation features recommended by

acoustical studies shall be incorporated into the project.

4.2 Noise


Policy 2.3 The City shall minimize noise exposure in the vicinity of the Lompoc Airport by

maintaining consistency with the Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Plan,

as amended.

The Noise Element states that noise levels may not exceed 75 dB(A) CNEL at any noise-sensitive land

uses.

City of Lompoc Noise Ordinance

Lompoc Municipal Code Article 2 contains the City’s Noise Ordinance, which includes standards that

address offensive noise sources. These standards address offensive noises originating from residential

properties, businesses, vehicles, and construction activities. The ordinance restricts the hours during

which outdoor noise-generating construction activities, loading and unloading of any vehicle, the

opening and destruction of bales, boxes, and crates, and vehicle or motorized refrigeration system

operation may occur. Specifically, the ordinance limits noise-generating construction activities to between

the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM when they would occur within 500 feet of a residential area.1,2 (These

limits are less restrictive than the implementation measures in the City’s general plan.) Motor vehicle

idling is restricted to between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.3 The ordinance does not include

quantitative standards or thresholds of significance for construction noise, steady-state sources of noise

such as mechanical equipment, or periodic sources of noise such as vehicle loading. These activities are

prohibited if they would cause annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of normal sensitivity in

residential areas.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Introduction to Noise

Noise is ordinarily described as unwanted sound. Sound is generally undesirable when it interferes with

normal activities, causes physical harm, or has an adverse effect on health. The definition of “noise” as

unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect on, or causes a substantial annoyance to, people and

their environment.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise

levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally

considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dB(A), moderate in the 60–70 dB(A) range, and high above

1 City of Lompoc, Municipal Code, Chapter 8.08.030.E, “Special Noise Source Prohibitions.”2 Ibid., Chapter 8.08.030.G, “Special Noise Source Prohibitions.”3 Ibid., Chapter 8.08.030.H, “Special Noise Source Prohibitions.”

4.2 Noise


70 dB(A). Noise levels greater than 85 dB(A) can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of

low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dB(A) and quiet suburban

residential streets with noise levels around 40 dB(A). Noise levels above 45 dB(A) at night can disrupt

sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas

(typically 55–60 dB(A)) and commercial locations (typically 60 dB(A)). People may consider louder

environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban

residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dB(A)) or dense urban or industrial areas

(65–80 dB(A)).

Sound-pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness because the human ear does not

respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, the human ear is less sensitive to low and

high frequencies than to the medium frequencies that more closely correspond to human speech. In

response to the human ear’s varying sensitivity to different frequencies, the A-weighted noise level,

referenced in unit of dB(A), was developed to better correspond with people’s subjective judgment of

sound levels. In general, changes in a noise level of less than 3 dB(A) CNEL are not noticed by the human

ear.4

Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in

noise. An increase greater than 5 dB(A) is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A)

increase in sound level to be doubling of sound volume. A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB(A)

increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound wave energy (e.g., doubling the volume of

traffic on a roadway) would result in a barely perceivable change in sound level. Common noise levels

associated with certain activities are shown inFigure 4.2-1, Common Noise Levels .

Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor

vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of mobile point sources (motor

vehicles). Sound generated by a stationary point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of

6 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically hard sites and at a

rate of 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically soft sites.5 A hard, or reflective, site does not provide any excess ground-

effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt, concrete, and very hard-packed soil.

4 US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield,Virginia: September 1980), 81.

5 Ibid., 97.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

EXAMPLES DECIBELS (dB)‡ SUBJECTIVEEVALUATIONS

DEAFENING

VERY LOUD

LOUDRange of S

peech

continuous exposure abovehere is likely to degrade the

hearing of most people

MODERATE

FAINT

VERY FAINT

NEAR JET ENGINE

THRESHOLD OF PAIN

THRESHOLD OF FEELING– HARD ROCK BAND

ACCELERATING MOTORCYCLE AT A FEW FEET AWAY*

LOUD AUTO HORN AT 10' AWAY

NOISY URBAN STREET

NOISY FACTORY

SCHOOL CAFETERIA WITH UNTREATED SURFACES

STENOGRAPHIC ROOM

NEAR FREEWAY AUTO TRAFFIC

AVERAGE OFFICE

SOFT RADIO MUSIC IN APARTMENT

AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUT STEREO PLAYING

AVERAGE WHISPER

RUSTLE OF LEAVES IN WIND HUMAN BREATHING

THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY

‡NOTE: dB are “average” values as measured on the A–scale of a sound–level meter.

* NOTE: 50' from motorcycle equals noise at about 2000' from a four-engine jet aircraft.

Common Noise Levels

FIGURE 4.2-1

651-010•12/09

SOURCE: United States Department of Transportation, "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment", Office of Planning and Environment Federal Transit Administration, May 2006

4.2 Noise


An acoustically soft or absorptive site is characteristic of normal earth and ground vegetation. As an

example, a 60 dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would

be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet. Sound generated by a line source

typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling distance from the source to the

receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively.6 Artificial or natural barriers can also attenuate sound levels,

as illustrated in Figure 4.2-2, Noise Attenuation by Barriers. Solid walls and berms may reduce noise

levels by 5 dB (A) to 10 dB(A).7 The same point source at an acoustically soft site would be 52.5 dB (A) at

100 feet and 45 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. The manner in which older homes in California were

constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dB(A) with

closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer homes is generally 30 dB(A) or more.

The minimum attenuation of exterior to interior noise provided by typical structures in California is

provided inTable 4.2-2, Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation (dB(A)).

Table 4.2-2Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation (dB(A))

Building Type Open Windows Closed Windows1

Residences 17 25

Schools 17 25

Places of Worship 20 30

Hospitals/Convalescent 17 25

Offices 17 25

Theaters 20 30

Hotels/Motels 17 25

Note:1 As shown, structures with closed windows can attenuate exterior noise by a minimum of 25to 30 dB(A).

Sources: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Noise: ADesign Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research ProgramReport, 117.

When assessing community reaction to noise, a scale that averages sound pressure levels over time and

quantifies the result in terms of a single numerical descriptor is necessary. Several scales have been

developed that address community noise levels. Those scales that are applicable to this analysis are the

6 US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield,Virginia: September 1980), 81.

7 Ibid., 18.

4.2 Noise


Leq (refers to equivalent continuous noise level), which can be measured over any period, but are typically

measured for 1-minute, 15-minute, 1-hour, or 24-hour periods. CNEL is another average A-weighted

sound level measured over a 24-hour period.

The CNEL noise scale is adjusted to account for some individuals’ increased sensitivity to noise levels

during evening and nighttime hours. A CNEL noise measurement is obtained by adding 5 decibels to

sound levels occurring during the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 decibels to sound levels

occurring during the nighttime from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5- and 10-decibel penalties are applied to

account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The logarithmic effect of

adding these penalties to the 1-hour Leq measurements typically result in a CNEL measurement that is

within approximately 3 dB(A) of the peak-hour Leq.8

Introduction to Vibration

Vibration consists of waves transmitted through solid material. The solid medium can be excited by

forces, movements, or pressure fields. Groundborne vibration may comprise a single pulse; a series of

pulses; or a continuous, oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is

oscillating, which is measured in hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or

“spectrum” of many frequencies, and generally are classified as broadband or random vibrations. The

normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt generally starts from a low

frequency of less than 1 Hz to a high of about 200 Hz. Vibration often measured in terms of the peak

particle velocity (PPV)9 in inches per second (in/sec).

Vibration energy disperses as it travels through the ground, causing vibration amplitude to attenuate

with increasing distance from the source. High-frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly than low

frequency, so that in the far-field from a source, the low frequencies tend to dominate. An example of

high-frequency vibration would be the ultrasound used in medicine, while source of low-frequency

vibration include pumps, boilers, electrical installations, fans, and road and rail traffic. Soil properties

also affect the propagation of vibration. When groundborne vibration interacts with a building, there is

usually a ground-to-foundation coupling loss, but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural

resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling windows,

shaking items on shelves, or the motion of building surfaces.

8 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement: A Technical Supplement to the Traffic NoiseAnalysis Protocol, (Sacramento, California: October 1998), N51-N54.

9 Particle velocity is the velocity of a particle (real or imagined) in a medium as it transmits a wave.

Roadway

Source Deflected Noise

Barrier

Line-of-SightReceptor

8'

Roadway

Source

Deflected Noise

Barrier

Line-of-Sight

Receptor

8'

"Barrier Effect" Resulting from Differences in Elevation.

"Barrier Effect" Resulting from Typical Soundwall.

Noise Attenuation by BarriersFIGURE 4.2-2

651-010•12/09


4.2 Noise


Groundborne vibration can be perceived without instrumentation within a few hundred feet of certain

types of construction activities, especially pile driving. Figure 4.2-3, Typical Levels of Groundborne

Vibration, identifies the typical groundborne vibration levels in in/sec PPV and human response to

different levels of vibration.

Road vehicles rarely create enough groundborne vibration to be perceivable to humans unless the road

surface is poorly maintained and there are potholes or bumps. If traffic induces perceptible vibration in

buildings (typically heavy trucks), such as window rattling or shaking of small loose items, then it is most

likely an effect of low-frequency airborne noise or ground characteristics. Human annoyance by vibration

is related to the number and duration of events. The more events or the greater the duration, the more

annoying it will be to humans.

The background vibration velocity level in residential and educational areas is usually around 50 VdB.

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration

velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly

perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within

buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors.

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled

trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely

perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background

vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in

fragile buildings.

Noise Analysis Methodology

The analysis of the existing and future noise environments is based on noise level measurements, noise

prediction modeling, and empirical observations. Existing noise levels were measured at the project site

using a Larson-Davis Model 831 precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. Traffic noise

modeling procedures involved the calculation of existing and future vehicular noise levels along

individual roadway segments in the project site vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic

volumes presented in Section 4.3, Transportation and Circulation. This model calculates the average

noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site

environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model

have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is

4.2 Noise


0.8 to 1.0 dB(A) higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dB(A)

lower than national levels (seeAppendix 4.2).

Existing Noise Environment

Ambient Daytime Noise Levels

Existing noise levels at the project site are primarily dominated by traffic on Central Avenue and O Street,

aircraft operations, motor vehicles, mechanical equipment, and human activity within the project site. To

establish baseline noise conditions within the vicinity of the project site, existing daytime noise levels

were measured on June 10, 2009, between the hours of 11:50 AM and 12:26 PM at two locations (see

Figure 4.2-4, Noise Measurement Locations). The sound level meter was calibrated and operated

according to the manufacturer’s written specifications. At the four measurement sites, the microphone

was placed at a height of approximately 5 feet above the local grade.

The existing daytime noise levels at the noise measurement locations can be seen in Table 4.2-3, Existing

Daytime Noise Levels. The sound level meter was programmed to record the average sound level (Leq)

over a cumulative period of 15 minutes. These noise levels are characteristic of a relatively quiet urban

environment.

Table 4.2-3Existing Daytime Noise Levels

Noise LevelStatistics

Noise Measurement Location Primary Noise Sources Leq Lmin Lmax(1) Behind existing Walmart facility Trucks entering and exiting Walmart

loading dock area58.6 38.1 80.5

(2) Adjacent to existing Walmart facility Trucks entering and exiting Walmartloading dock area

48.6 38.3 62.1

(3) South sidewalk along Central Avenue, infront of existing single-family homes

Heavy traffic along Central Avenue,including large number of trucks andsemis

73.3 53.7 95.7

(4) Southwest corner at the intersection ofCentral Avenue and O street, in front ofexisting single-family homes.

Heavy traffic along Central Avenue,including large number of trucks andsemis

63.5 49.6 76.0

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Noise level calculation data is provided in Appendix B ofAppendix 4.2.

Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration

FIGURE 4.2-3

651-010•12/09


HUMAN/STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

VELOCITY LEVEL IN VdB

TYPICAL SOURCES50 FEET FROM SOURCE

BUS OR TRUCK, TYPICAL

TYPICAL GROUND VIBRATION

THRESHOLD, MINOR COSMETICDAMAGE TO FRAGILE BUILDINGS

DIFFICULTY WITH TASKS SUCH ASREADING A VDT SCREEN

RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, INFREQUENT EVENTS

(E.G., COMMUTER RAIL)

RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE,FREQUENT EVENTS

(E.G., RAPID TRANSIT)

LIMIT FOR VIBRATION-SENSITIVEEQUIPMENT APPROXIMATE

THRESHOLD FOR HUMANPERCEPTION OF VIBRATION

AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUTSTEREO PLAYING

AVERAGE WHISPER

1 PPV is typically a factor 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity. A factor of 4 was used to calculate noise levels.

PPV AMPLITUDE IN INCHES

PER SECOND1

RMS VELOCITY AMPLITUDE IN

INCHES/SECOND2

.4

.04

.1264

.01264

.004

0

.1

.0316

100

90

.0180

70 .00316

.00160

.00126 50 .000316

RAPID TRANSIT, TYPICAL

BUS OR TRUCK OVER BUMP

COMMUTER RAIL, TYPICAL

RAPID TRANSIT,UPPER RANGE

COMMUTER RAIL,UPPER RANGE

BULLDOZER AND OTHER HEAVY-TRACKEDCONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

BLASTING FROMCONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

2 Vibration levels in terms of velocity levels are defined as: V=20 x log10

(a/r) V=velocity levels in decibels a=RMS velocity amplitude r=reference amplitude (accepted reference quantities for vibration velocity are 1 x 10-6 inches/second in the United States)

1

2

3

4

O S

TRE

ET

CENTRAL AVENUE

CORDOBA AVENUE

AVIATION DR

NORTHBROOK DRIVE

Noise Measurement Locations

FIGURE 4.2-4

651-010•12/09

SOURCE: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Environmental Noise Impact Analysis for Lompoc Walmart Expansion – December 2009


100 50 0 100

n

Legend:

Noise MeasurementLocation

Project Site

#

4.2 Noise


Roadway Noise Levels Off Site

Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway links in the project vicinity that have

noise-sensitive uses facing the roadways. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments

are presented inTable 4.2-4, Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off Site.

Groundborne Vibration Levels

Aside from seismic events, the greatest regular source of groundborne vibration at the project site and

immediate vicinity is roadway truck and bus traffic. Trucks and buses typically generate groundborne

vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB, and these levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks and buses

pass over bumps in the road.10

Aircraft Overflight Noise

The nearest airport to the project site is the Lompoc Municipal Airport, located approximately 325 feet to

the north. Aircraft using this airport take off and land in an east-west orientation and do not generally

create significant noise on the project site. The proposed project is not located within the flight traffic

pattern of the Lompoc Airport.11 Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) is located approximately 6 miles from

the project site; the nearest runway is approximately 7 miles from the site. The proposed project is not

located within the flight traffic pattern of Vandenberg AFB.12 The Lompoc Noise Element Background

Report includes a noise contour map that shows 60 dB(A) and 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contours based on

aircraft operations for the year 2015. The project site is outside the 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contour (i.e., the

average noise level on the project site from aircraft overflights is less than 60 dB(A) CNEL).13

Point (or Stationary) Sources of Noise

Intermittent noise levels would continue to occur in association with delivery vehicle operations, loading

dock activities and solid waste collection for the proposed commercial/retail uses at the project site. The

primary noise sources associated with the loading docks include heavy trucks stopping (air brakes),

backing into the loading dock (back-up alarm), and pulling out of the loading dock (engine noise). Once a

truck has backed into the dock, it is typically unloaded from the inside of the store using a forklift or

hand cart, and most of the unloading noise is contained within the building and truck trailer. Loading

10 Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.11 Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Commission, Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Plan, Santa Barbara

County Association of Governments, October 1993, 71.12 Ibid., 79.13 City of Lompoc,General Plan Revision Environmental Impact Report, October 1997, 467–468.

4.2 Noise


activities (e.g., idling, backing, and using hydraulic liftgates) involving small- to medium-sized trucks

generate noise in the range of 60 to 65 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the source, while larger trucks generate

noise in the range of 70 to 75 dB(A) at 50 feet. Trash collection activities typically also generate noise

levels ranging from 70 to 75 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet.

Sensitive Receptors

Some land uses are considered to be more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount

of noise exposure and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools,libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks, and outdoor recreation areas are

generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. In the vicinity of the project

site, sensitive receptors include residential areas located to the south and southwest of the project site.

Table 4.2-4Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off Site

Roadway Roadway Segment Land Uses dB(A) CNELWest of V Street Residential 58.5

East of V Street Residential 57.7

West of O Street Residential 57.4

East of O Street Residential 60.1

West of L Street Residential 61.0

East of L Street Residential 60.8

West of H Street Commercial 64.5

East of H Street Commercial 63.4

Central Avenue

West of A Street Residential 57.9

North of Central Avenue Residential 36.5V Street

South of Central Avenue Residential 53.0

North of Central Avenue Residential 50.6


North of Barton Avenue Residential 53.2O Street

South of Barton Avenue Residential 54.1

North of Central Avenue Residential 48.5L Street


North of Central Avenue Commercial 63.9H Street

South of Central Avenue Commercial 62.5

North of Central Avenue Residential 48.1A Street


Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Noise level calculation data is provided in Appendix B of Appendix 4.2.

4.2 Noise


PROJECT IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

To determine whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Lompoc identify criteria for conditions that

may be deemed to constitute a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in physical

conditions.

According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Lompoc, a project will result in a

significant impact if it would:

� rxpose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general planor noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

� expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;

� create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levelsexisting without the project;

� create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing without the project;

� expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, for a project locatedwithin an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a publicairport or public use airport; or

� expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, for a project within thevicinity of a private airstrip.

Construction Noise. The State CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which a temporary increase in

noise is considered “excessive.” In addition, the City of Lompoc has not adopted any thresholds for

construction noise impacts and the Municipal Code primarily regulates construction noise through

construction hour limitations. However, temporary noise impacts during construction are considered

significant if they would be substantially greater than existing ambient noise levels, would substantially

interfere with affected land uses, would continue for a substantial period, or would affect noise-sensitive

uses during the nighttime. The City considers an increase in existing ambient noise levels of 5 dB(A) or

greater at noise-sensitive receptor locations during construction to be significant.

Construction Vibration. The State CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundborne

vibration or groundborne noises are considered “excessive.” In addition, the City of Lompoc has not

adopted any thresholds for groundborne vibration impacts. Therefore, this analysis uses the Federal

4.2 Noise


Transit Administration (FTA) vibration impact thresholds for sensitive buildings, residences, and

institutional land uses under conditions where there are a frequent number of events per day.14 The

threshold for infrequent activity (fewer than 70 events per day) is 80 VdB at residences and buildings

where people normally sleep. The threshold for frequent activity (more than 70 events per day) is 72 VdB

at residences and buildings where people normally sleep.

Operational Noise. The State CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which a permanent increase

in ambient noise is considered “substantial.” As discussed previously in this report, a noise level increaseof 3 dB(A) is barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, and a difference

of 10 dB(A) would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Based on this information, the following

thresholds would apply to permanent increases in noise due to the operational characteristics of theproposed project:

� Less than 3 dB(A): not discernable: not significant.

� Between 3 dB(A) and 5 dB(A): noticeable but not significant if noise levels remain below the City ofLompoc General Plan noise level standards; significant if the noise increase would meet or exceed theCity of Lompoc General Plan noise level standards.

� 5 dB(A) or greater: significant.

Impact Analysis

The environmental impact analysis presented below is based on determinations made in the Notice of

Preparation (NOP) for issues that were determined to be potentially significant with mitigation

incorporated, or for issues identified by reviewing agencies, organizations, or individuals commenting on

the NOP that made a reasonable argument that the issue was potentially significant (see Responses to the

NOP, Appendix 1.0).

Construction Impacts

Noise Impacts

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of heavy equipment for demolition, site

grading and excavation, installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication. Development activities

would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each

stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would

vary based on the type and amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity.

14 Harris Miller Miller& Hanson, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006, 8-3.

4.2 Noise


The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating

characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. The rangefor noise levels generated by typical, individual pieces of construction equipment is provided in

Figure 4.2-5, Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment. Composite construction noise is

presented in Table 4.2-5, Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels. Noise levels such as these would

be generated at the project site during the construction phases of development, and they would diminish

rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dB(A) to 7.5 dB(A) per

doubling of distance for acoustically hard and soft sites, respectively.

Table 4.2-5Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels

Construction PhaseNoise Levels at 50 feet

(dB(A) Leq)Noise Levels at 50 Feet with

Mufflers (dB(A) Leq)Ground Clearing 84 82

Excavation, Grading 89 86

Foundations 78 77

Structural 85 83

Finishing 89 86

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Noise level calculation data is provided in Appendix 4.2.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located approximately

650 feet to the south of the proposed construction area, across Central Avenue. As the area between the

project site and these receptors consists of asphalt, the noise attenuation of the construction noise at the

project site would attenuate over an acoustically hard surface (i.e., noise levels would be reduced by

about 6 dB(A) for every doubling of distance). Based on the information provided above, construction

noise levels could reach as high as 89 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the noise source. Given that the nearest

sensitive receptors are located 650 feet away from the proposed construction area, construction noise

levels experienced at the property line of the nearest homes could be up to approximately 67 dB(A) Leq

when construction activities occur at the project site in accordance with the Municipal Code.15

As discussed previously, the City considers an increase in existing ambient noise levels of 5 dB(A) or

greater at noise-sensitive receptor locations to be significant. Based on the noise measurement conducted

on the south sidewalk of Central Avenue in front of the property line of the single-family homes, the

existing daytime noise level was measured at approximately 73 dB(A) Leq. As such, the 67 dB(A) Leq noise

15 City of Lompoc, Municipal Code, Chapter 8.08.030, “Special Noise Source Prohibitions.”

4.2 Noise


level generated from project construction would not result in an increase of 5 dB(A) at the single-family

homes located south of the project site.

Additionally, the nearest single-family home located at the southwest corner of O Street and Central

Avenue is located approximately 690 feet from the proposed construction area at the project site. Based

on this distance, construction noise levels at the property line of this home could reach up to

approximately 66 dB(A) Leq. Based on the measurement conducted in front of this home, the existing

daytime noise level was measured at approximately 64 dB(A) Leq. Thus, the construction noise generated

at the project site would also not result in an increase of 5 dB(A) at this receptor. Therefore, an increase in

noise levels above 5 dB(A) would not occur at these single-family residences that are located nearest to

the project site. As a result, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Vibration Impacts

Construction activities that would occur within the project site may have the potential to generate low

levels of groundborne vibration. Table 4.2-6, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment,

identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that may operate

during the construction of the proposed project.

Table 4.2-6Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Construction Equipment Approximate VdB at 25 feetLarge Bulldozer 87

Loaded Trucks 86

Jackhammer 79

Small Bulldozer 58

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact, 2006.

Construction activities may have the potential to impact the nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the

project site, which include the single family residential units located approximately 650 feet to the south

of the proposed construction area. The FTA has established vibration impact thresholds for residences of

72 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep.

Note: Based on limited available data samples.

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

PO

WE

RE

D B

Y IN

TER

NA

L C

OM

BU

STI

ON

EN

GIN

ES

EA

RTH

MO

VIN

G

MAT

ER

IALS

HA

ND

LIN

G

STA

TIO

NA

RY

IMPA

CT

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

OTH

ER

Compacters (Rollers)

Front Loaders

Backhoes

Tractors

Scrapers, Graders

Pavers

Trucks

Concrete Mixers

Concrete Pumps

Cranes (Movable)

Cranes (Derrick)

Pumps

Generators

Compressors

Pneumatic Wrenches

Jack Hammers, Rock Drills

Pile Drivers (Peaks)

Vibrators

Saws

60 70 80 90 100 110 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET

Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment

FIGURE 4.2-5

651-010•12/09

SOURCE: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1.

4.2 Noise


As shown in Table 4.2-7, Groundborne Vibration Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Uses, the single-family

residences could be exposed to groundborne vibration levels of approximately 46.3 VdB with the

simultaneous use of a backhoe, concrete vibrator and pavement breaker during demolition of portions of

the existing building. Therefore, these residential uses would not be exposed to vibration levels that

approach the FTA threshold of 72 VdB for residential uses and impacts would be considered less than

significant.

Table 4.2-7Groundborne Vibration Levels at Off-Site Sensitive Uses

Off-Site SensitiveLand Uses Location

Distance to Project Site(feet)

GroundborneVibration Levels

(VdB)Single-family residences Located south of the

project site acrossCentral Avenue

650 46.3

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Vibration calculation data are provided in Appendix B in Appendix 4.2.

Operational Noise

On-site

Future noise levels at the project site would continue to be dominated by traffic on Central Avenue and

O Street, aircraft operations, and motor vehicles, mechanical equipment, and human activity within the

project site itself. As shown previously in Table 4.2-3, the noise levels at the project site are characteristic

of a relatively quiet urban environment. As shown in Figure 4.2-6, Lompoc Airport Future Noise

Contours, the project site is located beyond the anticipated location of the 60 CNEL contour for the year

2015. The noise levels at the Walmart expansion site would be well below the City’s 65 dB(A) CNEL

exterior noise standard for commercial uses. This would be a less than significant impact regarding the

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.

Off-Site Vehicular Noise

Locations in the vicinity of the project site would experience a slight increase in noise resulting from the

additional traffic generated by the proposed project. The increases in noise levels at noise-sensitive

locations along the study-area roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site are identified in

Table 4.2-8, Future Roadway Noise Levels Off Site. As shown, the proposed project would increase local

4.2 Noise


noise levels by a maximum of 0.5 dB(A) CNEL, which would be imperceptible to most people and would

not exceed the identified thresholds of significance. This would be a less than significant noise impact

regarding a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project.

Table 4.2-8Future Roadway Noise Levels Off Site

Noise Levels in dB(A) CNEL

Roadway Roadway SegmentExisting

Project TrafficExisting PlusProject Traffic Increase

SignificantImpact?1

West of V Street 58.5 58.6 0.1 No

East of V Street 57.7 57.9 0.2 No

West of O Street 57.4 57.5 0.1 No

East of O Street 60.1 60.2 0.1 No

West of L Street 61.0 61.2 0.2 No

East of L Street 60.8 61.0 0.2 No

West of H Street 64.5 64.7 0.2 No

East of H Street 63.4 63.5 0.1 No

CentralAvenue

West of A Street 57.9 58.0 0.1 No

North of Central Ave 36.5 36.5 0.0 NoV Street

South of Central Ave 53.0 53.1 0.1 No

North of Central Ave 50.6 51.1 0.5 No


North of Barton Ave 53.2 53.4 0.2 NoO Street

South of Barton Ave 54.1 54.2 0.1 No

North of Central Ave 48.5 48.7 0.2 NoL Street


North of Central Ave 63.9 63.9 0.0 NoH Street


North of Central Ave 48.1 48.4 0.3 NoA Street


1 Impact determination is based on a 3.0 dB(A) CNEL or greater increase in noise levels as a result of the proposed project.Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Noise level calculation data is provided in Appendix 4.2.

Lompoc Airport Future Noise Contours

FIGURE 4.2-6

651-010•12/09

SOURCE: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Environmental Noise Impact Analysis for Lompoc Walmart Expansion – December 2009


1000 500 0 1000

n

Legend:

Project Site60 CNEL

65 CNEL

4.2 Noise


In addition, the proposed project would also result in an increase in delivery trucks traveling to and from

the project site. Currently, approximately four semi-trailer trucks and three smaller vendor trucks

conduct daily deliveries to the existing Walmart store. Upon completion of the proposed project, a total of

six semi-trailer and six vendor trucks would conduct daily deliveries to the project site. The net addition

of two semi-trailer trucks and three vendor trucks to the daily project-generated traffic would not result

in a substantial increase in traffic noise in the project vicinity. Nonetheless, Table 4.2-9, Future Roadway

Noise Levels Off Site With Project Delivery Trucks , provides the traffic noise levels due to

project-generated traffic and delivery truck trips on Central Avenue, the roadway the delivery trucks

would travel to access the project site. These traffic noise levels are then compared against the noise levels

generated by the existing traffic (including the existing delivery truck trips) at the project site.

Table 4.2-9Future Roadway Noise Levels Off Site

With Project Delivery Trucks


RoadwayRoadwaySegment

Existing ProjectTraffic

Existing Plus ProjectTraffic Increase

SignificantImpact?1









CentralAvenue


1 Impact determination is based on a 3.0 dB(A) CNEL or greater increase in noise levels as a result of the proposed project.Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Noise level calculation data is provided in Appendix B of Appendix 4.2.

As shown inTable 4.2-9, even when the additional delivery truck trips are added to the project-generated

traffic, the increase in traffic noise levels would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance. Since

the noise levels on Central Avenue would not exceed the identified threshold, the noise levels on other

roadway segments that are located farther away from the project site would also not exceed the identified

threshold. This would be a less than significant noise impact regarding a substantial permanent increase

in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

4.2 Noise


Operational Noise – Periodic

Loading Dock and Solid Waste Collection Noise

Intermittent noise levels would continue to occur in association with delivery vehicle operations, loading

dock activities and solid waste collection for the proposed commercial/retail uses at the project site. Theprimary noise sources associated with the loading docks include heavy trucks stopping (air brakes),

backing into the loading dock (back-up alarm), and pulling out of the loading dock (engine noise). Once a

truck has backed into the dock, it is typically unloaded from the inside of the store using a forklift orhand cart, and most of the unloading noise is contained within the building and truck trailer. Loading

activities (e.g., idling, backing, and using hydraulic liftgates) involving small- to medium-sized trucks

generate noise in the range of 60 to 65 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the source, while larger trucks generatenoise in the range of 70 to 75 dB(A) at 50 feet. Trash collection activities typically also generate noise

levels ranging from 70 to 75 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet.

As seen in Figure 3.0-3, Conceptual Site Plan, the loading docks and trash collection equipment

associated with the proposed expansion would be located on the north side of the building, facing the

new wine-making facility for which construction was recently completed, with ingress and egress points

for delivery trucks and trash collection trucks located off of North O Street. The uses that would be mostaffected by noise generated at and around the loading docks and trash collection facilities would be the

Walmart building itself, the rear of the existing commercial buildings to the east of the Walmart building,

and the new wine-making facility. The noise levels would occur for short periods when deliveries aremade and when trash collections are compacted. Although the intermittent noise levels could reach up to

75 dB(A) Leq, as discussed above, the 24-hour noise levels from these activities would be less than

55 dB(A) CNEL at the rear of the shopping center. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s65 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise standard for retail uses or the 75 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise standard for

manufacturing uses that is applicable to the nearby winery facility.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the ingress/egress access roads are the single-family residences locatedapproximately 850 feet to the south of the proposed loading docks and trash collection area. As discussed

above, loading and trash collection activities may produce noise levels as high as 75 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet

from the source. Similar to construction noise, operational noise attenuates at approximately 6.0 to7.5 dB(A) for every doubling of distance for acoustically hard and soft sites, respectively. However, the

existing Walmart and non-Walmart buildings would act as an intervening structure that would attenuate

noise produced by the loading docks and trash collection facilities. In general, a structure that blocks theline of sight between the source of noise and the receptor location reduces noise by approximately

5 dB(A) and an additional 1 dB(A) for every additional 2 feet of height. Therefore, with an assumed

building height of 30 feet, noise from the proposed loading docks and trash collection facilities would bereduced by at least 17.5 dB(A). As such, noise levels generated in this area may result in noise levels of up

4.2 Noise


to 33.0 dB(A) Leq at the nearest residents of the single-family residential uses to the south. As shownpreviously in Table 4.2-8, existing noise levels at the homes along Central Avenue east of O Street are

approximately 60.1 dB(A) CNEL. Therefore, noise levels generated within the loading dock and trash

collection area would not increase noise levels at the nearest homes to the project site. Impacts would be

less than significant.

HVAC

New rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems may be installed in the

expansion area. Similar to the existing equipment at the existing Walmart and non-Walmart buildings,

large HVAC systems associated with the commercial uses could result in noise levels that averagebetween 50 and 65 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the source and would be screened from view by rooftop

parapets, which reduce noise levels by at least 5 dB(A). Because the 24-hour CNEL noise levels are about

6.7 dB(A) greater than 24-hour Leq measurements, the HVAC equipment associated with the commercialuses could generate noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dB(A) CNEL at 50 feet when the

equipment is operating continuously over a 24-hour period. Similar to the loading dock and trash

collection facilities, HVAC noise attenuates at approximately 6 dB(A) for every doubling of distance.Therefore, the new wine-making facility would not be exposed noise levels that exceed the City’s

75 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise standard for manufacturing uses, and the single-family residences located

approximately 650 feet to the south of the nearest portion of the expansion area would be subject to noiselevels of less than 45 dB(A) CNEL.

Based on this information, noise levels associated with activities at the project site would not exceed the60 dB(A) CNEL standard for residential uses. This would be a less than significant impact regarding the

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. These activities would also notincrease existing noise levels at the homes nearest the project site. This would be a less than significant

noise impact regarding a substantial periodic or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Parking Noise

The expanded Walmart store would be open for 24 hours a day. As such, the nearest noise-sensitive

receptors to the project site, which are the single-family residences located to the south across Central

Avenue, may experience an increase in noise levels from use of the on-site parking lot by store patronsduring nighttime hours.

Sources of noise within the on-site parking lot would include engines accelerating, doors slamming, caralarms, and people talking. Noise levels within these parking levels would fluctuate with the amount of

automobile and human activity. Based on noise level data collected by Christopher A. Joseph &

4.2 Noise


Associates for a surface parking lot (see Appendix 4.2), it was determined that the composite parking

noise level during the daytime was 63 dB(A) Leq (1-hour) at a distance of 50 feet.

The single-family residences to the south of the project site, across Central Avenue, are located

approximately 111 feet from the southernmost portion of the on-site parking lot associated with theWalmart store. Based on this distance, the noise levels experienced by these off-site sensitive uses would

reach approximately 56 dB(A) Leq (1-hour). Given that these single-family residences are located behind a

noise wall, which typically provides an attenuation of 5 dB(A), the resulting hourly noise level would beapproximately 51 dB(A) Leq at these receptors. For the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis, it is

assumed that this hourly noise level from the on-site parking lot would occur for 24 hours, which in turn

would result in a noise level of approximately 58 dB(A) CNEL. This noise level would not exceed theCity’s exterior noise thresholds for residential uses, which is 60 dB(A) CNEL. Thus, use of the on-site

parking lot at the project site would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at these

noise-sensitive uses. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the proposed project’s on-site parking lotwould be less than significant.

As the proposed project would operate for 24 hours a day, there is also the potential for single-eventnoise levels generated during the nighttime at the project site to affect the nearby noise-sensitive uses

during recognized sleep hours. As discussed previously, noise levels above 45 dB(A) at night can disrupt

sleep. The loudest single noise events would likely involve loading dock activities at the Walmart storeand vehicular-related noise generated at the on-site parking lot (e.g., car alarms, car doors slamming, tires

squealing). Based on the noise discussion above for loading dock noise, loading activities involving large

delivery trucks could generate noise in the range of 70 to 75 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet. With the nearest off-sitesensitive receptors (i.e., single-family residences located south of the project site, across Central Avenue)

located approximately 850 feet away from the proposed loading docks, the noise level would be

approximately 50 dB(A) Leq at these receptors. Taking into consideration that these homes are locatedbehind a noise wall, the noise level from loading activities at the project site would be further reduced to

approximately 45 dB(A) Leq. Given that the exterior-to-interior noise reduction for homes is generally

25 dB(A) with closed windows, the noise generated by loading activities at the project site would befurther reduced to 20 dB(A) Leq. Thus, the noise generated from the project loading would not be high

enough to disrupt the off-site resident’s ability to sleep during the nighttime.

With regards to single-event noise levels generated at the parking lot during the nighttime hours that

may potentially affect the nearest off-site noise-sensitive uses, the loudest noise sources would likely be

car alarms activating, car doors slamming, and tires squealing, which could generate maximum noiselevels of 69 dB(A), 69 dB(A), and 70 dB(A), respectively, at 50 feet. Given that the southernmost portion of

the on-site parking lot for the Walmart store is located approximately 111 feet from the nearest

noise-sensitive receptors, a maximum noise level of 63 dB(A) would result at the noise-sensitive receptorsunder the conditions where noise is generated by squealing tires at the parking lot. Given that these

4.2 Noise


noise-sensitive receptors are located behind a noise wall and the exterior-to-interior noise attenuation

provided by closed windows at these receptors, the interior noise level at these receptors would beapproximately 33 dB(A), which would not exceed 45 dB(A). Thus, single-event noise levels generated at

the on-site parking lot during nighttime hours would not be high enough to disrupt the off-site residents’

ability to sleep. Impacts would be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project in combination with

ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the proposed project. As noise is a

localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases, onlyprojects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed project to result in

cumulative noise impacts.

Cumulative Construction Noise and Vibration

Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other new development projects would resultin an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise in this already urbanized area of the City of

Lompoc. However, each of the related projects would be subject to the Lompoc Municipal Code, which

limits the hours of allowable construction activities.16 Conformance with these City policies wouldreduce construction-related noise for the related projects. Cumulative construction noise-related impacts


Cumulative Operational Noise

Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on localroadways due to the proposed project and related projects within the study area. The predicted future

year ambient noise levels presented in the analysis with and without the proposed project are based on

cumulative traffic conditions, which already take into account expected development of related projectsidentified in the surrounding area. As shown in Table 4.2-10, Cumulative Roadway Noise at Locations

Off Site, none of the study roadway segments in the project vicinity would experience a substantial

permanent increase in ambient noise levels resulting from future ambient growth with the proposedproject. Therefore, cumulative traffic-related noise impacts to the surrounding environment would be less

than significant.

16 City of Lompoc, Municipal Code, Chapter 8.08.030.E, “Special Noise Source Prohibitions.”

4.2 Noise


Table 4.2-10Cumulative Roadway Noise at Locations Off Site


Roadway Roadway SegmentExisting Project

TrafficExisting PlusProject Traffic Increase

SignificantImpact?1









CentralAvenue


North of Central Ave 36.5 35.7 0.2 NoV Street


North of Central Ave 50.6 51.4 0.8 No


North of Barton Ave 53.2 53.6 0.4 NoO Street

South of Barton Ave 54.1 54.4 0.3 No

North of Central Ave 48.5 49.1 0.6 NoL Street


North of Central Ave 63.9 64.5 0.6 NoH Street


North of Central Ave 48.1 48.3 0.2 NoA Street


1 Impact determination is based on a 3.0 dB(A) CNEL or greater increase in noise levels as a result of the proposed project.Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Noise level calculation data is provided in Appendix B of Appendix 4.2.

MITIGATIONMEASURES

No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTERMITIGATION

Project- and cumulative-level impacts would be less than significant.


4.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the transportation and circulation systems

both on the project site and in the surrounding areas. The information and analysis presented in this section of the

EIR is based on the traffic and circulation study prepared for the project by Associated Transportation Engineers on

October 15, 2009. Refer to Appendix 4.3 of this EIR for a copy of this study. Based on direction from City staff, the

traffic and circulation study analyzed the traffic impacts on seven intersections in the areas surrounding the project

site based on existing and cumulative traffic conditions.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing Roadways and Intersections

Regional access to the City of Lompoc (City) is available from Highway 1 and State Route 246 (SR-246).

Local access to the site is available from Central Avenue, O Street, and L Street. Figure 4.3-1, Roadway

Designation, illustrates the existing intersections, streets, and highways within the project area. A brief

description of intersection and roadways within the project area is provided below.

Local Street System

To determine potential significant impacts related to the proposed project, the following seven study

intersections were selected for analysis by the City of Lompoc’s Engineering Division, based on its

knowledge of the proposed project, the surrounding roadways, and the capacities of the area

intersections:

� A Street/Central Avenue

� H Street/Central Avenue

� L Street/Central Avenue

� O Street/Central Avenue

� V Street/Central Avenue

� Barton Avenue/O Street

� Highway 1/Purisima Road/Harris Grade Road

4.3 Transportation and Circulation


The traffic and circulation study area is generally comprised of locations that have the potential to

experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project. The above seven intersections were

selected because they are (1) adjacent or in proximity to the project site and (2) are forecast to experience a

relatively greater percentage of project-related vehicular turning movements than those intersections

located at a greater distance than the project site. The existing lane configurations at the seven study

intersections are shown in Figure 4.3-2, Existing Lane Geometry.

Roadway Descriptions

The project site is served by a circulation system comprised of arterial, collector, and local streets, as

shown in Figure 4.3-1. Brief descriptions of the key roadways that provide access to the project area are

provided below.

Central Avenue, located along the southern frontage of the shopping center, is a four-lane east-west

Major Arterial that serves the northern part of the City. Central Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial.1

Within the study-area, Central Avenue is controlled by an all-way stop at A Street; and is signalized at H

Street, L Street, O Street, and U Street. The posted speed limit on Central Avenue is 45 miles per hour

(mph) within the vicinity of the site.

A Street, located east of H Street, is classified as a Minor Arterial. This north-south roadway extends from

McLaughlin Road on the north to Locust Avenue on the south. The posted speed limit on A Street is

35mph south of Central Avenue.

H Street (Highway 1), located east of the project site, is a north-south roadway that is classified as a Major

Arterial. H Street is a four-lane roadway with a center left turn lane north and south of Central Avenue.

The posted speed limit is 35 mph north and south of Central Avenue. The roadway continues north of the

City as Highway 1, connecting to Vandenberg Village, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the Santa Maria–

Orcutt area.

L Street, located along the eastern frontage of the shopping center, is a two-lane road that extends south

of Central Avenue to Barton Avenue. This two-lane undivided roadway is classified as a local street. The

posted speed limit is 25 mph south of Central Avenue.

O Street, located along the western frontage of the shopping center, is a four-lane north-south roadway

that extends from the Lompoc Airport on the north to Olive Street south of Ocean Avenue in the southern

portion of the City. O Street is classified as a Minor Arterial. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

1 City of Lompoc, “Circulation Element,” General Plan, (1997) Circulation-12.

Roadway Designation

FIGURE 4.3-1

651-010•12/09

SOURCE: Associated Transportation Engineers – October 2009

NOT TO SCALEn

Existing Lane Geometry

FIGURE 4.3-2

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn



V Street, located west of the project site, is a two-lane north-south roadway that extends from the Lompoc

Airport on the north to Olive Street on the south. This two-lane undivided roadway is classified as a

Minor Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph south of Central Avenue.

Barton Avenue, located south of the site, is a two-lane roadway that extends east and west of H Street.

Barton Avenue is classified as a Local Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Purisima Road, located north of town, extends east of Highway 1 and connects to SR-246 east of Lompoc.

The Highway 1/Purisima Road/Harris Grade Road intersection is signalized.

Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing AM (7:00 to 9:00) and PM (4:00 to 6:00) peak hour turning volumes for the study-area

intersections are illustrated on Figure 4.3-3, Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. The existing peak hour

traffic counts for the study-area intersections were collected on March 24, 25, and 29, 2009 (counts

collected on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday). Traffic count data is contained in the Appendix 4.3 of

this EIR.

Because traffic flow on the City's street network is most constrained at intersections, a detailed analysis of

traffic flow must examine the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods.

The morning and evening traffic counts were used to establish the extent to which the existing peak hour

intersection capacities are being utilized by existing traffic volumes, and the directional orientation of

traffic in the area.

Existing Traffic Operations

Level of Service Criteria

Intersection capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through a given

intersection during a given period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions, assuming no

interference from downstream traffic operations. By comparison, levels of service (LOS) are a relative

measure of driver satisfaction, with letter grades of A (free flow) through F (forced flow). Peak hour

traffic creates the heaviest demand upon the circulation system and the lane configuration at intersections

is the limiting factor in roadway capacity; therefore, peak hour intersection capacity analyses address

"worst-case" conditions. Table 4.3-1, Intersection Level of Service Criteria, shows the intersection level

of service criteria that are used by the City.



Table 4.3-1Intersection Level of Service Criteria

DelayLevel ofService Signals Stop Control Definition1

A <10.0 sec. <10.0 sec. Conditions of free unobstructed flow, no delays and all signal phasessufficient in duration to clear all approaching vehicles.

B 10.1–20.0 10.1–15.0 Conditions of stable flow, very little delay, a few phases are unable tohandle all approaching vehicles.

C 20.1–35.0 15.1–25.0 Conditions of stable flow, delays are low to moderate, full use of peakdirection signal phases is experienced.

D 35.1–55.0 25.1–35.0Conditions approaching unstable flow, delays are moderate to heavy,significant signal time deficiencies are experienced for short durationsduring the peak traffic period.

E 55.1–80.0 35.1–50.0Conditions of unstable flow, delays are significant, signal phase timingis generally insufficient, and congestion exist for extended durationthroughout the peak period.

F >80.0 >50.0

Conditions of forced flow, travel speeds are low and volumes are wellabove capacity. This condition is often caused when vehicles releasedby upstream signal are unable to proceed because of backups from adownstream signal.

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.1 Source of traffic flow description by LOS: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 (page 10-5).2 Note: LOS = Level of Service; Average Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

The delay experience by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometrics,

traffic, and incidents. Only that portion of the total delay attributable to control measures (either traffic

signals or stop signs) is quantified and used to identify the corresponding level of service. Control delay

is the total elapsed time from the time a vehicle stops at the end of the queue to the time the vehicle

departs from the stop line. It also includes the time elapsed during the deceleration of vehicles from the

free-flow speed to the speed of the vehicles in the queue.

As shown in Table 4.3-1, smaller delays imply better operational characteristics and levels of service. The

City's traffic impact threshold requires that it shall maintain intersection traffic levels of service at LOS C

or better throughout the City, with the exception of intersections monitored in accordance with the

Congestion Management Program (CMP), at LOS D or better, administered by the Santa Barbara County

Association of Governments (SBCAG).2 CMP intersections shall maintain a LOS in accordance with the

most recent CMP standards, when it can be demonstrated that all feasible mitigation measures have been

applied to the project and LOS C, with said mitigation, cannot be achieved.

2 City of Lompoc,General Plan Circulation Element, 1994 2.

Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-3

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn



Santa Barbara County Congestion Management Program

Approval of Proposition 111 in June 1990 required the preparation and implementation of a CMP in each

of California's urbanized counties. The SBCAG was designated as the Congestion Management Agency.

The SBCAG Congestion Management Program, adopted May 21, 1998, establishes a minimum level of

service along roadways within the CMP-designated network. SBCAG has established a minimum

intersection level of service (LOS D) performance standard for selected intersections along Highway 1

and SR-246, the two designated CMP facilities in Lompoc. Two-lane highway segments affected by

signalization (generally within 2 miles of a signalized intersection) are excluded from CMP LOS analysis.

The CMP requires that the average weekday evening peak period LOS at signalized CMP intersections be

evaluated utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology with the input parameters

specified by SBCAG. Only one of the study intersections, H Street and Central Avenue, is listed as a

CMP-controlled intersection.

The City CMP intersections shall maintain a LOS in accordance with the most recent CMP standards (at

LOS D or better), when it can be demonstrated that all feasible mitigation measures have been applied to

the project and LOS C, with said mitigation, cannot be achieved. The standards are based on the actual

function of these roadways. The CMP intersection standard reflects the fact that these intersections are

subject to regional influences beyond Lompoc’s control.

Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections using the methodologies outlined in the

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000).3 Levels of service calculation worksheets are contained in

Appendix 4.3 for reference. The HCM 2000 levels of service are based on the average number of seconds

of control delay per vehicle using the intersection during the peak 1-hour period. The existing control

type and the AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the study-area intersections are listed in

Table 4.3-2, Existing Levels of Service.

3 National Research Council,Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Special Report 209, 2000.



Table 4.3-2Existing Levels of Service

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Intersection ControlAverageDelay LOS

AverageDelay LOS

A Street/Central Avenue All-WayStop

9.0 A 11.0 B

H Street/Central Avenue Signal 27.5 C 32.8 C

L Street/Central Avenue Signal 14.6 B 27.9 C

O Street/Central Avenue Signal 17.8 B 25.9 C

V Street/Central Avenue Signal 13.1 B 14.9 B

Barton Avenue/O Street Signal 8.9 A 8.0 A

Highway 1/PurisimaRoad/Harris Grade Road

Signal 22.4 C 25.4 C

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: LOS = Level of Service; Average Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

All study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the morning and evening peak hours

with the existing lane geometrics.

Project Trip Generation

Trip generation estimates were calculated for the proposed project using rates published in the Institute

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual. The ITE rates for Free-Standing Discount

Superstore (ITE Land Use 813) were determined by ATE and City staff to be the best fit for the proposed

project. The ITE for this category states:

The discount superstores in this category are similar to the free-standing discount stores describedin Land Use 815 with the exception that they also contain a full-service grocery department underthe same roof that shares entrances and exits with the discount store area. The stores usually offera variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. They typicallymaintain long store hours 7 days a week. The stores included in this land use are often the onlyones on the site, but they can also be found in mutual operations with a related or unrelatedgarden center and/or service station or as part of a shopping center, with or without their owndedicated parking area. Free-Standing Discount Store (Land Use 815) is a related use.

As with other retail developments, there are several "trip types" that will occur at the proposed project.

These include "Primary," "Internal Capture," and "Pass-By" trips. Primary trips are single purpose trips,

where the sole purpose of the trip is to visit the store. Internal Capture trips are those trips that would be

to/from the other retail uses within the shopping center. Internal Capture trips would not affect the



adjacent street network. Pass-By trips already exist on the adjacent streets but would stop at the site along

their way. These trips would be new at the project driveways, but would not affect the adjacent streets.

Primary trips are determined by netting out the number of internal Capture and Pass-By trips. The ITE

multi-use traffic model was used to determine the number of internal trips that would be to/from the

other uses within the shopping center.4 The multi-use model shows that 30 percent of the daily trips and

20 percent of the PM peak hour trips would be internal to the site. (Note that the ITE data does not

contain internal capture rates for the AM peak hour period.) To be conservative, the traffic impact

analysis assumes that 15 percent of the daily trips and 10 percent of the PM peak hour trips would be

internal to the site.

The ITE Trip Generation Handbook does not contain pass-by rates for the Free-Standing Discount

Superstore category (ITE Land Use 813) but does contain rates for related land uses. The Pass-By trip rate

for Free-Standing Discount Store (Land Use 815) is 17 percent for the PM peak hour period. The Pass-By

trip rate for Shopping Centers (ITE Land Use 820) is 34 percent for the PM peak hour period. Finally, the

Pass-By trip rate for Supermarket (ITE Land Use 850) is 36 percent for the PM peak hour period. To be

conservative, the traffic impact analysis assumes that 15 percent of the PM peak hour trips that are not

internally captured will be pass-by trips. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook does not contain pass-by rates

for daily trips and AM peak hour trips. Although it is reasonable to assume that some of the daily and

AM peak hour trips would be pass-by in nature, those assumptions were not made in order to provide a

conservative analysis.

Weekend Trips

While the City of Lompoc has not adopted traffic standards and impact thresholds for weekend periods,

the applicant requested that the traffic study include an analysis of potential impacts on weekends.

Roadway volumes were collected adjacent to the shopping center to determine the peak hour period on

weekends. The data show that the weekend peak hour occurs on Saturday between 12:00 and 1:00 PM.

Peak hour traffic counts were then collected on April 4, 2009, at the L Street/Central Avenue,

O Street/Central Avenue, and Central Avenue/Shopping Center access driveway intersections to

determine the existing Saturday peak hour volumes. The traffic counts are contained inAppendix 4.3 for

reference.

The existing Saturday volumes are displayed on Figures 4.3-4, Existing Saturday Peak Hour Traffic

Volumes.

4 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, Second Edition,June 2004.



Existing Alternative Transportation Modes

Public Transportation

Lompoc Transit provides daily demand-response bus service within the urbanized portions of the

Lompoc Valley (excluding the US penitentiary). Three types of service are available: walk-on, advanced

reservations, and same-day service. The hours of operation are 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through

Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Service is provided using eight buses that can accommodate

approximately 30 riders each. Six buses currently provide service within the City, using a clockwise and

counter clockwise pick-up and delivery pattern. The remaining two buses provide service outside the

City to the unincorporated areas of Vandenberg Village, Mission Hills, and Mesa Oaks.

City of Lompoc Transit (COLT) provides public transit service within Lompoc, Mission Hills, and

Vandenberg Village. COLT Route 2-2A serve the project site via bus stops on the north and south sides of

Central Avenue at the shopping center. Service is provided from 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and

from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Curb-to-curb service is available for seniors and persons with

disabilities.

Bicycle Facilities

The use of bicycles instead of automobiles as a means of transportation improves health and fitness;

provides enjoyment; and reduces air pollution, traffic congestion, energy consumption, and

transportation costs. These benefits justify local and regional government recognition of bicycles as a

viable transportation mode for local trips as well as the development and improvement of facilities to

accommodate safe and efficient bicycle use. Bikeways are defined into three categories: Class I, Class II,

and Class III. Each category is discussed below.

Class I bikeways include bike paths that provide for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated

from any street or highway. The paths may be located along alignments parallel to streets or unrelated

alignments as long as there is no encroachment from motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic except at grade

intersections.

Class II bikeways include striped lanes for one-way bike travel within the paved area of a street or

highway. These bike lanes are for preferential use by bicyclists. However, cross traffic is permitted for

driveway access.

Class III bikeways are bike routes in which both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic share the same roadway

surface area. The route is marked with signs identifying the roadway as part of a bikeway system.

Existing Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-4

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn



Since adoption of the Lompoc Bikeways Plan in 1974, seven bikeway projects have been completed using

State Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. In addition to these completed bikeway

improvements, the City Council approved additional Class II striping on five roadways on April 4, 1995.

Bicycle lockers have been installed at several high-density commuter destinations throughout the City of

Lompoc to encourage bicycle commuter trips and decrease dependence on automobiles.

Class II bike lanes (painted on-street lanes) are present on many of the street segments in the vicinity of

the site include Central Avenue, O Street, and V Street. Sidewalks are present along both sides of Central

Avenue for pedestrians that walk to the site.

IMPACT ANALYSIS


To assist in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines identify criteria for conditions that may be deemed to

constitute a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in physical conditions. Specifically,

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) lists the following items to be

considered when determining whether a project may have a significant impact if it would:

� cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volumeto capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);

� exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the countycongestion management agency for designated roads or highways;

� result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change inlocation that results in substantial safety risks;

� substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);

� result in inadequate emergency access;

� result in inadequate parking capacity; or

� conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., busturnouts, bicycle racks).

Each government agency has its own criteria for determining a significant impact. The City of Lompoc

and SBCAG have established minimum levels of service standards that apply to the roadways and

intersections in the study area. These performance standards vary somewhat, depending upon the agency



with jurisdiction over each intersection and roadway segments. In the case of some of the study

intersections evaluated in the traffic study, more than one agency has jurisdiction. All of the study

intersections analyzed in the traffic study are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Lompoc. As

such, the impact criteria utilized by the City of Lompoc will be used to assess the significance of the

impacts at each of the study intersections.

City of Lompoc Impact Criteria

As stated in the City of Lompoc General Plan, the City's traffic impact threshold is,

The City shall maintain intersection traffic levels of service (LOS) at LOS C or better throughoutthe City, with the exception of intersections monitored in accordance with the CMP administeredby the SBCAG. CMP intersections shall maintain a LOS in accordance with the most recentCMP standards, when it can be demonstrated that all feasible mitigation measures have beenapplied to the project and LOS C, with said mitigation, cannot be achieved.

SBCAG Impact Criteria

SBCAG, as the Congestion Management Agency, performs LOS analyses for average weekday evening

peak periods by employing the ICU methodology. The Santa Barbara County CMP determines the

significance of individual project traffic impacts based upon the existing LOS at the CMP intersections.

For existing intersections operating at LOS A or B, a significant impact occurs if the addition of

project-related traffic would result in a decrease of two levels of service (e.g., to LOS D or worse

operation). For CMP intersections operating at LOS C, a significant impact occurs if the addition of

project-related traffic would result in LOS D or worse operation. For CMP intersections currently

operating at LOS D, the addition of 20 or more project-related peak hour trips must be disclosed in the

environmental document as a significant impact. Similarly, the addition of 10 or more project-related

trips to a CMP intersection currently operating at LOS E or LOS F must be identified in the environmental

document as a significant impact.

If a CMP intersection under the jurisdiction of the City of Lompoc is operating at LOS D and a project

adds 20 or more peak hour trips, a significant impact must be disclosed in the environmental document.

If the intersection remains within LOS D, a CMP deficiency plan will not be required and mitigation may

be deferred for CMP purposes. However, mitigation would be required if the cumulative analysis shows

the intersection level of service dropping below LOS D (the CMP standard).

If a significant impact is identified at a CMP intersection and mitigation to LOS C (per City of Lompoc

standards) is not feasible, the City of Lompoc can approve the project by way of the adoption of a

statement of overriding considerations or by amending the City’s general plan. However, if the CMP



standard (LOS D) is exceeded, the environmental document must identify the need for a CMP deficiency

plan. Mitigation measures would then need to be addressed as part of the deficiency planning process.

There are two options: (1) the project is put on hold until a CMP deficiency plan is developed and

approved by the local agency and SBCAG, or (2) the project applicant contributes to the mitigation to be

identified in the CMP deficiency plan to bring the intersection back to within the CMP Level of Service

standard of LOS D or better.

Project Site Traffic Generation

Traffic Generation

The trip generation potential of the proposed project was determined from average trip generation rates

published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.5 Table 4.3-3, Project Trip Generation, shows the trip

generation estimates for the proposed project based on the Free-Standing Discount Superstore rates. As

mentioned, the trip generation analysis assumes a net increase of 45,000 square feet (sf) in order to

provide a conservative analysis (the project proposes a 41,433-square-foot addition). Table 4.3-3 shows

that the 45,000-square-foot expansion would generate a total of 2,391 average daily trips (ADTs), 76 AM

peak hour trips, and 208 PM peak hour trips.

Table 4.3-3Project Trip Generation

ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourLand Use Size (sf) Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips

Free-Standing Discount Superstore 45,000 53.13 2,391 1.67 76 4.61 208

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: ADT = Average Daily Vehicles.Note: sf = square feet.

Table 4.3-4, Trip Type Breakdown, shows the breakdown of trips estimated for the proposed project

assuming the conservative estimates discussed above (based on 45,000 sf expansion and relatively low

Capture andPass-By trip rates).

5 Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003.



Table 4.3-4Trip Type Breakdown

ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourTrip Type Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent TripsTotal Trips N/A 2,391 N/A 76 N/A 208

InternalCapture

15 359 0 0 10 21

Pass-By1 0 0 0 0 15 28

Primary(remainder) 2,032 76 159

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.1 Pass-By percentages applied to non-Internal Capture trips.N/A = not available

Weekend Analysis

Saturday trip generation estimates were calculated for the proposed project using the ITE rates for Free-

Standing Discount Superstore (ITE Land Use 813, the same category used for the weekday analysis).

Table 4.3-5, Weekend Project Trip Generation, shows the Saturday trip generation estimates for the

proposed project.

Table 4.3-5Weekend Project Trip Generation

ADT Peak HourLand Use Size (sf) Rate Trips Rate Trips

Freestanding Discount Superstore 45,000 64.07 2,883 5.64 254

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: ADT = Average Daily Vehicles.Note: sf = square feet.

The Saturday peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed project were distributed and

assigned to the site driveways and key intersections in the vicinity of the shopping center using the same

modeling applied for the weekday analysis.



Traffic Distribution and Assignment

The trip distribution pattern developed for the proposed project is shown on Table 4.3-6, Project Trip

Distribution. The distribution model was originally developed for the traffic study prepared for the

Lompoc Corners Shopping Center. That model was developed based on existing traffic patterns within

the study area and consideration of the population centers in the Lompoc Valley that would patronize the

retail center. Figure 4.3-5, Project Trip Distribution and Assignment, shows the assignment of project

traffic at the key intersections.

Table 4.3-6Project Trip Distribution

Origin/Destination Direction Distribution (percent)Highway 1 west of Harris Grade Road West 11

Highway 1 (H Street) south of North Avenue South 22

Purisima Road East 5

Harris Grade Road North 5

Central Avenue west of V Street West 5

North 6A Street

South 5

O Street south of North Avenue South 11

V Street south of North Avenue South 7

Local east of H Street1 East 5

Local south of project site2 South 18

Total 100

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.1 Local area east of H Street includes 3 percent adjacent to Central Avenue + 2 percent adjacent to North Avenue, and west of H Street.2 Local area south of O Street, north of North Avenue, and west of H Street.

Project Impacts

Construction

Traffic conditions in the project area during construction activities would be disrupted on a short-term

basis, primarily due to the hauling of equipment and materials on and off site. Heavy construction

equipment such as bulldozers and large loaders would be moved on site prior to ground-moving

activities and remain on site or nearby the site until after completion. The movement of construction

vehicles and equipment onto and off of the site would be scheduled in order to avoid the peak hour

traffic periods on the adjacent street network. In addition, construction employees would be traveling to

and from the site on a daily basis during the construction period. In order to minimize potential conflicts



between construction activity and through traffic, a construction traffic control plan would be developed

for use during construction activity. The plan would identify all traffic control measures, signs, anddelineators to be implemented by the construction contractor during the duration of demolition and

construction activity and shall comply with the provisions of the City of Lompoc “Standard

Requirements for the Design and Construction of Subdivisions and Special Developments.” With theimplementation of a traffic control plan and City requirements set forth in Project Design Features

PDF 4.3-1 through PDF 4.3-9, and because the majority of vehicle trips associated with construction

activities would occur during off-peak hours, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Operational

Existing With and Without Project Conditions

As described in Table 4.3-2, the existing levels of service for the seven studied intersections within the

study area are all at an acceptable LOS C or better. Figure 4.3-6, Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic

Volumes, demonstrates the future circulation of the seven intersections with the proposed project. The

intersections LOS were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the existing plus theproposed project traffic volumes. Tables 4.3-7, Existing Plus Project LOS – Peak Hour, compare the

existing and existing plus the proposed project LOS for the study-area intersections. The tables also show

the significance of project-added traffic based on City thresholds.

The data presented in Table 4.3-7 indicate that all of the study-area intersections would continue to

operate at LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. These service levels meet the City's LOS

C performance standard. The project would not significantly impact the operation of the areaintersections during either the AM or PM peak hour periods. Impacts would be less than significant.

Weekend Analysis With and Without Project

As described above under Existing Conditions, the traffic and circulation study analyzed weekend peak

hour trips for the three intersections within the project area. Table 4.3-8, Existing Plus Project LOS –

Saturday Peak Hour, compares the existing conditions and the existing conditions plus the proposed

project levels of service for the intersections in the vicinity of the shopping center. As shown in

Table 4.3-8, the intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better under existing conditions plus the

proposed project conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.



Table 4.3-7Existing Plus Project LOS –Peak Hour

AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourExistingConditions

Existing Conditionsplus Project

ExistingConditions

Existing Conditionsplus Project

Intersection

AverageDelay(sec.) LOS



AverageDelay (sec.) LOS

A Street/Central Ave 9.0 A 9.0 A 11.0 B 11.2 B

H Street/Central Ave 27.5 C 27.6 C 32.8 C 33.4 C

L Street/Central Ave 14.6 B 18.6 B 27.9 C 24.2 C

O Street/Central Ave 17.8 B 17.4 B 25.9 C 22.5 C

V Street/Central Ave 13.1 B 13.5 B 14.9 B 15.3 B

Barton Avenue/O Street

8.9 A 8.8 A 8.0 A 7.9 A

Highway 1/Purisima Road/Harris Grade Road

22.4 C 21.8 C 25.4 C 25.9 C

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: LOS = level of service; based on average seconds of delay per vehicle, pursuant to HCM 2000.

Table 4.3-8Existing Plus Project LOS – Saturday Peak Hour

Existing Conditions Existing Conditions plus ProjectIntersection Average Delay (sec.) LOS Average Delay (sec.) LOS

L Street/Central Avenue 30.1 C 32.6 C

Shopping Center Access/Central Avenue

13.3 B 13.6 B

O Street/Central Avenue 19.6 B 20.4 C

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: LOS = level of service; based on average seconds of delay per vehicle, pursuant to HCM 2000.

For comparison, the Saturday peak hour levels of service are the same or better than on weekdays, as

seen in Table 4.3-2. The L Street/Central Avenue intersection operates at LOS C during both the Saturday

and weekday peak periods. The O Street/Central Avenue intersection operates at LOS B during the

Saturday peak period and LOS C during the weekday peak period. Given these findings, it is can be



concluded that the Saturday peak hour levels of service at the other study-area intersections are the same

or better than on weekdays. Therefore, potential weekend traffic impacts would be less than significant.

CMP Analysis

As described under the Existing Conditions section above, H Street is part of the CMP roadway network.

Levels of service for CMP signalized roadways segments (such as H Street) are based on the signalized

intersections.

The H Street/Central Avenue intersection is located on the CMP roadway network. Levels of service were

calculated for this intersection using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology required by

SBCAG, which is different than the HCM 2000 methodology used by the City of Lompoc (the application

of HCM 2000 methodology is included in the Recommended Improvements discussion and Table 4.3-13,

below). Table 4.3-9, CMP LOS – PM Peak Hour, shows the results of the ICU level of service analysis.

Table 4.3-9CMP LOS – PM Peak Hour

ExistingExisting

Plus Project CumulativeCumulativePlus Project

CumulativePlus ProjectMitigated

Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS

Project-AddedTrips

HSt./Central Ave

0.74 C 0.75 C 0.81 D 0.82 D 0.70 B 73

Note:Bolded values exceed City’s LOS C operating standard.

The data presented in Table 4.3-9 shows that the H Street/Central Avenue intersection would operate in

the LOS D range during the PM peak period with only cumulative conditions and cumulative plus

proposed project conditions. The proposed project would add 73 peak hour trips to the intersection,

which exceeds the CMP threshold of 20 added trips for intersections operating in the LOS D range. (See

Appendix 4.3.) Therefore, the impacts would be potentially significant.

ImplementingMitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, which would include a fair-share contribution toward the

installation of dual left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches, would provide LOS B

under cumulative plus proposed project conditions and reduce the CMP cumulative impact to less than

significant. See Recommended Improvements and Table 4.3-14, below, for further discussion regarding

the proposed project's fair-share contribution.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

FIGURE 4.3-5

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn

Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-6

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn



Air Traffic Patterns

The project site is located approximately 325 feet to the south of the Lompoc Airport. The proposed

project would not exceed the maximum height allowed under the Planned Commercial Development

(PCD) zone. In addition, this land use is allowed under the existing Lompoc Airport Master Plan

(LAMP). Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the proposed

project would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation if:

� Marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting areaccomplished on a voluntary basis, the FAA recommend it be installed and maintained in accordancewith FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2 (see Appendix 4.6).

Therefore, implementation of the project would result in a less than significant impact from the safety

risks associated with air traffic patterns.

Site Access and Circulation

Access to the project site will be provided at the following locations:

� Main access driveway/Central Avenue between L Street and O Street (Signalized, full-access)

� Second (northeastern) access driveway/L Street (Analyzed as an unsignalized full access driveway)

� Third (southeastern) access driveway/L Street (Analyzed as an unsignalized full access driveway)

� Fourth (northwestern) access driveway/O Street (Analyzed as an unsignalized full access driveway)

� Fifth (southwestern) access driveway/O Street (Analyzed as an unsignalized full access driveway)

Access to the shopping center parking fields is provided by the main signalized driveway on Central

Avenue located midway between L Street and O Street; as well as additional driveways on Central

Avenue, L Street and O Street, see Figure 3.0-3, Conceptual Site Plan. Peak hour traffic volumes were

collected at the site driveways in order to analyze their operations.

Figure 4.3-7, Existing PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes, and Figure 4.3-8, Existing Plus Project PM

Peak Hour Driveway Volumes, show the existing and existing plus the proposed project driveway

volumes for the PM peak hour period. The delays and levels of service for each driveway are shown

below in Table 4.3-10, Existing Plus Project Driveway LOS – PM Peak Hour. As shown, the driveways

are forecast to operate at LOS A and LOS B during the PM peak hour period under existing plus

proposed project conditions. Consequently, potential site access and circulation would have less than

significant impacts.



Table 4.3-10Existing Plus Project Driveway LOS – PM Peak Hour

Existing Conditions Existing Plus ProjectIntersection Control Average Delay (sec.) LOS Average Delay (sec.) LOS

L Street/North Driveway Stop Sign 8.3 A 8.3 A

L Street/South Driveway Stop Sign 9.8 A 9.9 A

Central Avenue/Main Driveway Signal 10.9 B 11.6 B

O Street/North Driveway Stop Sign 9.4 A 9.5 A

O Street/South Driveway Stop Sign 10.4 B 10.7 B

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: LOS = Level of Service; Average Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Emergency Access

The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. At each of the project driveways,

one lane inbound and one lane outbound would provide sufficient room for the project vehicles, such as

single-unit trucks to maneuver in and out of the driveways. The site’s circulation features are expected to

be adequate for regular access as well as truck access.

Parking

The City of Lompoc Zoning Ordinance standard calls for 1 parking space per 250 square feet of gross

floor area for shopping centers.6 The project is proposing to add 41,433 square feet to the existing

104,453-square-foot Walmart building, for a total size of 145,886 square feet. The total proposed store area

equals 151,271 square feet assuming the garden center. Application of the 1 space per 250 sf standard to

the proposed 151,271 Walmart store (including garden center) yields a requirement of 605 parking spaces.

The parking calculations prepared for the proposed project show that a minimum of 728 spaces would be

provided for the expanded Walmart store, which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirement of

605 spaces. It is noted that the Zoning Ordinance requirement for the project assuming a

45,000-square-foot addition would be 619 spaces. This requirement would also be satisfied with the

proposed parking supply of 728 spaces. Consequently, potential parking impacts for the proposed project


6 City of Lompoc, Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 17.112.020, “Schedule of Off-StreetParking Requirements.”

Existing PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-7

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn

Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-8

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn



The parking calculations for the entire shopping center show that a total of 1,280 parking spaces would be

provided. This ratio equates to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sf assuming the 41,433-sf expansion, which exceeds

the 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sf required by the zoning ordinance.7 The ratio would be slightly less assuming

an expansion of 45,000 sf, but would exceed the 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sf required by the Zoning Ordinance.

Therefore, potential parking impacts for the shopping center would be less than significant.

Alternative Transportation Modes

Currently, Class II bike lanes are present along Central Avenue, O Street, and V Street within the vicinity

of the project site. Class II bikeways provide a one-way striped bike lane within the paved shoulder area

of a street. Based on Santa Barbara County CMP, Biennial Update, the City of Lompoc currently has

approximately 8 miles of bikeways in the regional bikeway system. Since the proposed project is an

expansion of the existing Walmart building, the shopping center in which the project is located would

have easy access to the existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity, thereby providing potential bicycle use as

a viable transportation mode for a good portion of the local trips. The use of bicycles in lieu of

automobiles as a mode of transportation should be encouraged, as it results in improved health and

fitness and reduces air pollution, traffic congestion, and fuel costs.

Currently, COLT Route 2-2A serves the project site via bus stops on the north and south sides of Central

Avenue at the shopping center. Service is provided from 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and from

9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Curb-to-curb service is available for seniors and persons with

disabilities. Route 5 runs along V Street, Olive Avenue, O Street, and Central Avenue, and provides

access to Mission Plaza, the shopping center, and the Ryon Park within the City of Lompoc. Since the

proposed project would be an expansion of the existing Walmart store the existing bus route (COLT

Route 2-2A) is expected to be utilized by the project.

Overall, the proposed project will not impact existing public transportation facilities or bikeways.

CumulativeWith and Without Project Impacts

Trip generation estimates were calculated for the cumulative projects using the rates published in the ITE

Trip Generation report.8 The trips generated by the cumulative projects were then distributed and

assigned to the study-area street network based on patterns developed for other projects in the City as

well as the existing traffic patterns observed in the area. The cumulative traffic volume forecasts for the

7 City of Lompoc, Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 17.112.020, “Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements.”8 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, Second Edition,

June 2004.



study-area intersections are shown on Figure 4.3-9, Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. The

cumulative analysis was based on the list of approved and pending projects, which includes all projects

within the City as well as projects adjacent to the City, as seen in Section 4.0.

The study-area intersections were analyzed to assess future operations under cumulative conditions

(without the proposed project). Cumulative level-of-service forecasts are shown in Table 4.3-11,

Cumulative Levels of Service.

Table 4.3-11Cumulative Levels of Service

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

IntersectionAverageDelay (sec.) LOS

AverageDelay (sec.) LOS

A Street/Central Avenue 9.4 A 12.1 B

H Street/Central Avenue 27.8 C 37.5 D

L Street/Central Avenue 14.4 B 29.9 C

O Street/Central Avenue 18.5 B 25.1 C

V Street/Central Avenue 13.7 B 15.5 B

Barton Avenue/O Street 8.8 A 7.8 A

Highway 1/Purisima Road/Harris GradeRoad

27.3 C 33.1 C

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: LOS = Level of Service; Average Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.Note: Bolded values exceed the City’s LOS C operating standard. H Street/Central Avenue operates at greater than 35 seconds of delay pervehicle = LOS D.

The data presented in Table 4.3-11 show that the H Street/Central Avenue intersection is forecast to

operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour period under cumulative conditions (without the proposed

project), which exceeds the City's LOS C performance standard. The remaining study-area intersections

are forecast to operate at LOS C or better under cumulative conditions.

The proposed project-generated traffic volumes were added to the cumulative traffic volumes. The

cumulative plus the proposed project traffic volumes are presented on Figure 4.3-10, Cumulative Plus

Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections

assuming the cumulative plus the proposed project volumes. The cumulative and cumulative plus the

proposed project levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour periods are presented in Table 4.3-12,

Cumulative Plus Project LOS– Peak Hours.

Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-9

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn

Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

FIGURE 4.3-10

651-010•12/09


NOT TO SCALEn



Table 4.3-12Cumulative Plus Project LOS –Peak Hours

AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourCumulativeConditions

Cumulative plusProject

CumulativeConditions

Cumulative plusProject

Intersection





A Street/Central Avenue

9.4 A 9.4 A 12.1 B 12.2 B

H Street/Central Avenue

27.8 C 28.1 C 37.5 D 38.8 D

L Street/Central Avenue

14.4 B 14.7 B 29.9 C 30.3 C

O Street/Central Avenue

18.5 B 17.1 B 25.1 C 25.5 C

V Street/Central Avenue

13.7 B 13.7 B 15.5 B 15.8 B

Barton Avenue/O Street

8.8 A 8.7 A 7.8 A 7.8 A

Highway 1/Purisima Road/Harris Grade Road

27.3 C 28.1 C 33.1 C 33.4 C

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: LOS = level of service; based on average seconds of delay per vehicle, pursuant to HCM 2000.Note: Bolded values exceed the City’s LOS C operating standard. H Street/Central Avenue operates at greater than 35 seconds of delay pervehicle = LOS D.

The data presented in Table 4.3-12 indicate that most of the study-area intersections are forecast to

operate at LOS C or better with cumulative plus the proposed project traffic volumes. The

HStreet/Central Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D under cumulative and cumulative

plus the proposed project conditions, exceeding the City's LOS C operating standard. Therefore,

cumulative impacts would potentially be significant.

Recommended Improvements

The following improvement recommendations have been developed for the project.

H Street/Central Avenue. The traffic analysis found that the H Street/Central Avenue intersection is

forecast to operate at LOS D under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. The City has

identified improvements for the intersection. The improvement plan is to install dual left-turn lanes on



the northbound and southbound approaches at the intersection. The City has been collecting fees from

individual developments located in the study area to fund the implementation of this cumulative

improvement. Table 4.3-13, Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour LOS with Improvements, shows

the cumulative plus the proposed project PM peak hour levels of service assuming implementation of the

planned improvements.

Table 4.3-13Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour LOS with Improvements

Existing Geometry With ImprovementsIntersection Average Delay (sec.) LOS Average Delay (sec.) LOS

H Street/Central Avenue 38.8 D 31.5 C

Note: Bolded values exceed the City’s LOS C operating standard.

As shown in Table 4.3-13, the H Street/Central Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C with

the planned improvements, thus meeting the City's LOS C standard. The proposed project would be

required to pay a fair-share contribution to the identified improvements. The fair-share percent

contribution attributed to the proposed project would be 13.9 percent assuming 45,000 sf of new floor

area as well as the project's fair-share contribution based on entering volumes, see Table 4.3-14, Project

Fair Share Calculation – PM Peak Hour. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts would be less than

significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Table 4.3-14Project Fair Share Calculation – PM Peak Hour

Intersection

ExistingVolume(ADTs)

Cumulative PlusProject EnteringVolume (ADTs)

Net NewVolume(ADTs)

Project AddedVolume(ADTs)1

ProjectPercentShare2

H Street/Central Avenue 3,881 4,408 527 73 13.9

Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, October 2009.Note: ADTs = average daily trips.1 Project Added Volume based on 45,000 square feet expansion.2 Project Percent Share = 73 / 527 Trips.



PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES ANDMITIGATIONMEASURES

The following mitigation measures should be incorporated in the project to minimize the potential for

significant adverse circulation impacts associated with theWalmart Expansion Project.

Construction

Construction activities shall comply with the provisions of the City of Lompoc “Standard Requirements

for the Design and Construction of Subdivisions and Special Developments” (July 3, 1990), as outlinedbelow.

PDF 4.3-1 The contractor shall conduct operations so as to cause the minimum obstruction and

inconvenience to traffic and to residences adjacent to the work. No greater quantity of

work shall be under construction at any one time than can be properly conducted with

due regard for the rights of the public.

PDF 4.3-2 Convenient access to driveways, houses, and buildings along the line of work shall be

maintained.

PDF 4.3-3 Streets shall not be closed to traffic without approval of the City Engineer, and then only

for as short a period as possible to complete the work. All closed streets shall bebarricaded at all intersecting streets with Type III barricades, which shall be illuminated

at night by a flashing device.

PDF 4.3-4 Safe, adequate pedestrian access to all residences, places of business, and other

establishments affected by the work shall be provided and maintained by the contractor

at all times.

PDF 4.3-5 The contractor shall provide safe, adequate crossings for pedestrians at each street

intersection, cross street, and pedestrian crossing.

PDF 4.3-6 The contractor shall expedite the passage of any necessary traffic around the work.

PDF 4.3-7 The contractor shall furnish, install and maintain signs, detours, lights, flares, and

barricades, and shall furnish flagmen and other facilities for the convenience and

direction of public traffic.

PDF 4.3-8 Spillage resulting from hauling or ditching operations along or across any public traveled

way shall be removed daily at the contractor's expense. Any spoils piles, bedding gravel,base material etc., shall be placed as far out of the traveled way as possible and removed

within 24 hours. No material or equipment shall be stored where it will interfere with the



free and safe passage of public traffic. The contractor shall remove all equipment and

other obstructions from that portion of the roadway open for use by public traffic at theend of each day's work and at other times when construction operations are suspended

for any reason.

PDF 4.3-9 The contractor shall promptly restore normal facilities for the convenience of access by

the public including restoration of sidewalks, driveways, and similar types of access, and

the prompt removal of excess materials from streets and parkways when a reasonable

portion of the work in any location has been completed.

Operational

MM 4.3-1 The proposed project shall contribute it’s fair share contribution to the City’s

improvement plan for the H Street/Central Avenue intersection. The City identified

improvements for the H Street/Central Avenue intersection include the installation of

dual left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches at the intersection.

The proposed project’s fair share contribution shall be 13.9 percent of the total cost of the

intersection improvement in current dollars. Payment of fees shall occur prior to issuance

of building permits.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTERMITIGATION

With the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, project- and cumulative-level impacts would be



4.4 URBAN DECAY

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential urban decay impacts of the

proposed expansion of the existing Walmart store in the City of Lompoc. The information and analysis presented in

this section of the EIR is based on the urban decay study prepared for the project by The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.,

(TNDG) in December 2009. Refer to Appendix 4.4 of this EIR for a copy of this study. This economic analysis is

used to determine, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project’s

potential to create urban decay.

The economic analysis addresses three key issues:

The potential for the planned Walmart grocery component to negatively impact existing supermarkets in thetrade area

The potential for the new Walmart “GAFO”1 space to negatively impact existing general merchandise(department) and specialty stores in the trade area

The cumulative impacts associated with the project when its economic impacts are considered together with theeconomic impacts of all major retail projects currently planned for development in the trade area

CEQA does not trigger an automatic presumption that urban decay will occur as a result of other businesses being

closed. However, store closures can lead to conditions of urban decay. For the purpose of this analysis, urban decay

is defined as physical deterioration that is prevalent and substantial to the extent that it impairs the proper

utilization of affected real estate or the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical

deterioration includes, but is not limited to, abandoned buildings and commercial sites in disrepair, boarded doors

and windows, long-term unauthorized use of properties and parking lots, extensive gang or offensive graffiti painted

on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees or shrubbery, extensive litter,

uncontrolled weed growth, and homeless encampments.

METHODOLOGY

For purposes of estimating impacts in the relevant retail categories, the analysis of the urban decay study

considers a trade area that includes the City of Lompoc along with the surrounding unincorporated area

of northwest Santa Barbara County. The analysis projects total resident purchasing power within this

trade area, and uses this projection of total demand as the basis for determining the extent to which the

1 “GAFO” is a retail industry acronym for the General Merchandise, Apparel, Furniture, and Other/Specialty salescategories. These categories correspond to the typical merchandise mix of a discount department store such asWalmart. The GAFO retail categories are also referred to as “shopper” or “comparison” goods.

4.4 Urban Decay


proposed project could be supported in the market area without negatively impacting existing

businesses.

The study methodology includes the following major steps:

1. Estimate the current potential demand for general merchandise, apparel, furniture, specialty, grocery,restaurant, building/hardware/garden, auto and service station sales in the trade area, based onexisting demographics.

2. Compare this “potential” demand to the actual volume of retail sales in the trade area, based ontaxable sales data from the California State Board of Equalization (BOE).

3. Estimate the volumes of additional general merchandise, apparel, furniture, specialty, grocery,restaurant, building/hardware/garden, auto and service station sales that the market could support infuture years (through 2020), based on the difference between potentially supportable sales and theexisting sales volumes in the trade area.

4. Estimate the square footage of new retail space that could be supported, by translating potential newretail sales (determined in step 3) into supportable square feet of retail space.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRADE AREAS

According to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the premier trade association of the

shopping center industry, a stand-alone supermarket would typically have a primary trade area of

3 miles or less. The proposed project, however, already includes a general merchandise store that draws

consumers from a larger trade area (consistent with the typical trade area for a community-scale facility).

Reflecting this “dual” characteristic of the proposed expanded Walmart, the market area boundaries have

been defined in terms of the polygon shown on Figure 4.4-1, Lompoc Retail Trade Area.

The City of Lompoc represents the nearest concentration of retail shopping establishments for residents

in the defined trade area. As shown on Figure 4.4-1, the trade area polygon is defined as follows: the

northern boundary extends along State Route (SR) 135; the eastern boundary extends along

approximately half way between the cities of Lompoc and Buellton; the southern boundary extends along

the coast; and the western boundary extends along Vandenberg Air Force Base. Along with the City of

Lompoc, the trade area includes the communities of Vandenberg Village, Mesa Oaks, and Mission Hills

in the unincorporated portion of the county.

Lompoc Retail Trade Area

FIGURE 4.4-1

651-001•01/10

SOURCE: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. – December 2009

NOT TO SCALEn

December 28, 2009 THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.

ProjectSite

4.4 Urban Decay


Projected retail demand from market area residents is disaggregated into various retail categories based

upon retail expenditure patterns observed in California counties with similar income characteristics as

the trade area. The basic distribution of retail sales by retail category is projected as follows in Table 4.4-1,

Distribution of Retail Sales by Category in Trade Area.

Table 4.4-1Distribution of Retail Sales by Category in Trade Area

Retail Category Distribution (percent)Shopper Goods:

Apparel 4.0

General Merchandise 13.0

Furniture/Appliances 4.0

Specialty 14.0

Subtotal 35.0

Convenience Goods:

Food/Liquor 23.0

Eating and Drinking 11.0

Subtotal 34.0

Heavy Commercial Goods:

Building Materials/Hardware 9.0

Auto Dealers 13.0

Service Stations 9.0

Subtotal 31.0

Grand Total 100.0

Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., December, 2009.

The Lompoc Regional Trade Area’s capture rates of resident demand are projected to be relatively high

due to the tendency of residents to shop relatively close to their homes, especially for convenience goods.

Generally, it is reasonable to expect that residents will make the vast majority of their retail purchases

locally, provided that a competitive mix of retail stores reflective of consumer needs is available.

Table 4.4-2, Capture Rates of Trade Area Demand in Lompoc Retail Trade Area, shows the projected

capture rates of demand for each retail category. Generally, this type of analysis would treat the area as a

“closed system,” meaning that it would assume that given an adequate supply of retail stores, residents

4.4 Urban Decay


of the market area will make all of their retail purchases somewhere in the Lompoc Regional Trade Area.

However, in this case, the capture rates have been adjusted downward to account for the fact that thearea does not have a full-scale regional shopping center; therefore, it is assumed that the area will always

experience some level of retail “leakage” to other areas of Santa Barbara County (e.g., Santa Maria) with a

larger array of retail facilities. Based on an analysis of a proprietary database of shopping centers in amajor metropolitan area, approximately 30 percent of retail space is in regional or super-regional centers

(defined here as centers with 250,000 square feet or more of gross leasable area) while the remaining

70 percent of the space is in community- and neighborhood-scale centers. Therefore, the LompocRegional Trade Area could be expected to realistically “capture” up to 70 percent of retail demand in the

shopper goods categories. The Lompoc Regional Trade Area is projected to potentially capture all of its

residents’ demand in the Food (grocery store) and Auto Dealers and Parts categories, along with85 percent in the Eating and Drinking, Building Materials/Hardware and Service Station categories,

because of the strong propensity of consumers to purchase goods in these categories as close as possible

to their residences.

Table 4.4-2Capture Rates of Trade Area Demand in Lompoc Retail Trade Area

Retail Category Capture Rate (percent)Shopper Goods:

Apparel 70.0

General Merchandise 70.0

Furniture/Appliances 70.0

Specialty 70.0

Convenience Goods:

Food/Liquor 100.0

Eating and Drinking 85.0

Heavy Commercial Goods:

Building Materials/Hardware 85.0

Auto Dealers and Parts 100.0

Service Stations 85.0


At nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base there is an existing 33,900-square-foot commissary, which

primarily provides grocery goods to base personnel and visitors. According the latest available data,

there are approximately 2,775 military personnel and 3,800 retired military personnel residing in the

4.4 Urban Decay


surrounding area that would also have access to the on-base commissary. These individuals potentially

could shop for grocery items at the commissary, indicating that the trade area capture rate for the Foodcategory would be slightly less than 100 percent. However, we have also assumed that the Lompoc

Regional Trade Area will not derive any market support from on-base personnel and visitors, even

though they likely travel to Lompoc for many of their retail shopping purchases. It is likely that theseshopping trips would be combined with some grocery purchases in Lompoc, given the convenience of

combining different types of retail purchases and the wider variety of shopping options available in the

City. Thus, the net impact to grocery sales in the Lompoc Regional Trade Area would likely be a “wash,”as any potential grocery purchases made by Lompoc Regional Trade Area residents at the commissary

would likely be offset by purchases made in Lompoc by on-base residents and visitors. This indicates that

the 100 percent capture rate for the food category is a reasonable assumption. In addition, this capturerate factor has been validated based on an analysis of existing Food category sales data provided by the

BOE. (See Appendix 4.4.)

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Lompoc Retail Trade Area

The retail environment in the trade area is largely characterized by grocery-anchored neighborhood

shopping centers and smaller strip center retail developments. In addition to the existing Walmart store,other “big box” retail tenants in the trade area include a freestanding Home Depot, a Ross Dress for Less

(Mission Plaza), a Petco (Lompoc Plaza), and a Michael’s store (Lompoc Plaza).

The trade area currently has four major supermarkets—Albertsons, Vons (2), and Foods Co.—, which are

all located in the City of Lompoc, totaling an estimated 183,042 square feet (sf). In addition, a

15,000-square-foot specialty supermarket, Fresh & Easy, recently opened in the trade area.

Although the trade area has a relatively high number of vacancies, due in part to the current severe

economic downturn, there do not appear to be long-term indications of physical decline or urban decayin the trade area. That is, with one exception,2 the vacant stores do not exhibit significant deterioration of

the building structures and/or their surroundings.

The total inventory of retail space in the trade area is estimated at approximately 1.75 million square feet

(msf). Of this total, approximately 1.72 msf, or 98 percent of the overall inventory, is located in the City of

Lompoc. The remaining 33,000 sf is located in the communities of Vandenberg Village, Mesa Oaks, and

Mission Hills, located in the unincorporated area north of the City. The trade area’s retail space is

currently 82.8 percent occupied. The overall vacancy rate, 17.2 percent, is well above the range of

2 One vacant restaurant was identified, located at 1601 North H Street, with graffiti on one window along withindications of deferred maintenance (e.g., overgrown weeds)

4.4 Urban Decay


5 percent to 10 percent generally considered to be reflective of a healthy retail market. However, with the

current economic downturn and subsequent retail chain bankruptcies (e.g., Mervyn’s), many markets are

experiencing temporary spikes in their overall vacancy rates. Table 4.4-3, Existing Retail in Trade Area,

provides a breakdown of the existing retail mix in the non-downtown portions of the trade area.

Table 4.4-3Existing Retail in Trade Area

Tenant Category Total (square feet) Percent of TotalApparel 50,205 2.87

General Merchandise 271,346 15.51

Food Stores (e.g., supermarkets) 265,390 15.17

Restaurants 211,167 12.07

Home Furnishings and Appliances 76,491 4.37

Hardware and Building Materials 270,730 15.47

Automotive Parts 25,651 1.47

Specialty/Other 136,859 7.82

Services in Retail Space 140,932 8.05

Subtotal, Occupied Space 1,448,771 82.79

Vacant Space 301,211 17.21

Grand Total 1,749,982 100


Downtown Lompoc

Downtown Lompoc includes a cluster of casual dining establishments and an established community of

independent, small retail stores offering a variety of goods such as furniture, art and antiques, music and

service retail. The downtown area is bounded by Chestnut Avenue to the north, K Street to the west,

Cypress Avenue to the south, and F Street to the east. Based on findings from the urban decay study and

described in Table 4.4-4, Existing Retail in Downtown Lompoc, the current vacancy rate in downtown

Lompoc is estimated at approximately 30 percent, considerably higher than the overall trade area rate.3

However, it should be noted that the vacant square footage includes some space that would not

technically be identified as retail space (e.g., a fitness club, office space), but theoretically could be reused

as retail space given its location next to other retail uses. Excluding these types of properties would bring

the calculated vacancy rate down to 23 percent. The estimated vacancy rate is relatively high, based on

3 As described in the Old Town Specific Plan (City of Lompoc, adopted January 12, 2001).

4.4 Urban Decay


either measure, and there appear to be some older buildings in downtown that are outdated relative to

the needs of many contemporary retail tenants.

Table 4.4-4Existing Retail in Downtown Lompoc

Tenant Category Total (square feet) Percent of TotalApparel 1,773 0.97

General Merchandise 21,862 12.02

Food Stores (e.g., supermarkets) 4,534 2.49

Restaurants 36,672 20.16

Home Furnishings and Appliances 27,045 14.87

Hardware & Building Materials 6,742 3.71

Automotive Parts 3,683 2.03

Specialty/Other 22,999 12.65

Services in Retail Space 4,788 2.63

Subtotal, Occupied Space 130,098 71.53

Vacant Space 51,773 28.47

Grand Total 181,871 100.00

Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., December, 2009. See Appendix 4.4.

IMPACT ANALYSIS


Per Section 15131(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project’s economic impacts on a community are

considered significant only if they can be tied to direct physical impacts. For purposes of this analysis, the

following criteria are used to determine if the project’s market impacts would be significant enough to

create a lasting physical change in a market area:

Any diversion of sales from existing retail facilities would have to be severe enough to result inbusiness closings.

The business closures would have to be significant enough in scale (i.e., in terms of the total squarefootage affected and/or the loss of key “anchor” tenants) that they would be presumed to lead tosignificant physical deterioration. Physical deterioration includes, but is not limited to, abandonedbuildings and commercial sites, boarded doors and windows, long-term unauthorized use ofproperties and parking lots, extensive gang or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping ofrefuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees or shrubbery, extensive litter, uncontrolledweed growth, and homeless encampments.

4.4 Urban Decay


Given the CEQA-defined focus on physical urban decay impacts, this section is not intended to quantify

all potential economic impacts that the proposed project may have on existing businesses and

municipalities in the market area. For example, temporary sales impacts to competitive supermarkets or

big-box stores in the market area (i.e., revenue losses that are not deemed to be severe enough to result in

closure of the competitors’ stores) would not meet the CEQA significance threshold and are therefore not

specifically addressed.

Project Impacts

Project Design

For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that grocery component of the proposed project would total

32,121 sf (23,997 sf of grocery sales area plus 8,124 sf of grocery support space). It is projected that the

project grocery space would generate sales levels equivalent to the national average for grocery sales in

Walmart stores of approximately $637 per square foot (gross area)4, or total grocery sales of

approximately $20.5 million.

Project Grocery Component

The trade area currently has four major supermarkets—Albertsons, Vons (2), and Foods Co.—, which are

all located in the City of Lompoc, totaling an estimated 183,042 sf. In addition, a 15,000-sf specialty

supermarket, Fresh & Easy, recently opened in the trade area. The demand analysis indicates that, prior

to the opening of Fresh & Easy, there was sufficient demand to support average supermarket sales

volumes in the trade area of $470 per square foot. In comparison, the industry median for supermarkets is

approximately $473 per square foot nationally and $418 in the Western United States.5 Thus, prior to the

opening of Fresh & Easy, supermarkets in Lompoc had average sales volumes roughly on par with the

national median and approximately 12 percent higher than the Western regional median.

With the opening of Fresh & Easy, the total inventory of supermarket space in the trade area increased to

198,042 sf. Based on this expanded inventory (and the conservative assumption that the introduction of

Fresh & Easy will not increase total sales in the trade area but just redistribute existing sales over a larger

area), the predicted average sales potential of existing supermarkets in the trade area would be $434 per

4 Based on data from Progressive Grocer’s 2009 Super 50 publication, the national average sales volumes forWalmart grocery space is approximately $852 per square foot of sales area. Based on the floor area configurationfor the grocery component of the proposed project, the grocery sales area is equal to approximately 75 percent ofthe grocery component’s building space. Thus, the sales volume for the gross building area of the store’s grocerycomponent is estimated at $637 per square foot ($852 x 75 percent).

5 According to the 2008 edition of the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, based onULI’s sample of supermarkets in neighborhood shopping centers.

4.4 Urban Decay


square foot, which is below the national median but still about 4 percent higher than the Western regional

median.

Total demand for supermarket sales in the trade area is projected to increase from approximately

$86.0 million in 2009 to approximately $86.2 million in 2011 (the assumed opening date of the project). By

2020, total demand for supermarket sales in the City is projected to reach $90.3 million6 (all projections

are given in 2007 constant dollars7). Given the relatively modest growth in trade area grocery demand

over the next several years, only a small portion of the proposed project’s grocery sales would be

supported by incremental demand. The vast majority of the proposed project’s grocery sales would be

diverted from existing supermarkets in the City. Table 4.4-5, Potential Sales Impacts to Existing

Supermarkets, below, evaluates this impact in terms of the potential reduction in the sales per square

foot volume at the four existing supermarkets.

Table 4.4-5Potential Sales Impacts to Existing Supermarkets

Year (in thousands of dollars)Description 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2020

Total Food Sales Demand 113,472 114,686 114,915 115,942 117,410 118,583 120,369

Supermarket Share at 75 percent 85,104 86,014 86,187 86,957 88,057 88,937 90,277

Less Demand Absorbed by New Facilities

Grocery Component1

0 0 (20,461) (20,461) (20,461) (20,461) (20,461)

Net Demand Available to Support ExistingSupermarkets

85,104 86,014 65,725 66,496 67,596 68,476 69,816

Existing Supermarket (square feet) 183,042 198,042 198,042 198,042 198,042 198,042 198,042

Sales per square foot for existingsupermarkets (in dollars)

$465 $434 $332 $336 $341 $346 $353

Note: parenthesis denotes a loss in sales.1 Sales per square foot (gross area) assumption = $637Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., December 2009.

As demonstrated in Table 4.4-5, the development of the proposed project could potentially cause one of

the existing supermarkets in Lompoc to close, given that the combined sales volumes of the four existing

supermarkets would fall 23.5 percent from the existing level, and 29.4 percent from the pre–Fresh & Easy

level, with the expansion of the proposed project in 2011. Based on this projected sales impact and an

6 The projected growth in grocery demand is based on projected growth in the number of households in the tradearea. The household projections are documented in Section III-B and Appendix C in Appendix 4.4 of this EIR.

7 This analysis uses 2007 as the base year, since it is the latest full year for which taxable sales records are availablefrom the BOE.

4.4 Urban Decay


assumed sales-per-square-foot support requirement of $473, based on the national median, the trade area

would be overbuilt by approximately 59,000 sf of supermarket space in 2011. By 2020, the City would stillbe overbuilt by approximately 50,400 sf.

It should be noted that the previously cited national and Western region median regional sales figures of

$473 per square foot and $418 per square foot, respectively, do not necessarily reflect break-eventhresholds for all supermarkets. Since the $473-per-square-foot and $418-per-square-foot factors reflect

the median sales figures, by definition half of all supermarkets are operating below these levels.

Many supermarkets operate at substantially lower sales levels than the median. This fact indicates thatthe estimated 59,000 sf of overbuilt grocery space—and the related conclusion that one existing

supermarket would potentially close as a result of the proposed project—represents a relatively

conservative calculation and worst-case scenario. Indeed, the urban decay study estimates that the fourmajor supermarkets in Lompoc have historically survived at average sales volumes as low as $313 per

square foot (as measured in 2007 dollars). As shown in Table 4.4-6, Estimate of Supermarket Sales (1999-

2007), below, Lompoc supermarkets throughout much of the early part of this decade have operated at

aggregate sales volumes in the $300-to-$400-per-square-foot range (in 2007 dollars).

To further evaluate the “typical” sales volumes of California supermarkets, a proprietary database of

chain-specific supermarket sales estimates was utilized from Trade Dimensions International, Inc., (TradeDimensions) a market research firm of The Nielsen Company. The database, comprising data from more

than 3,100 individual stores, includes sales estimates for 49 supermarket chains operating in California

along with aggregate sales estimates for independent supermarkets.8 According to this database, averagesales per square foot by chain ranges from $212 to $801 per square foot. For all chains combined, the

median and average sales per square foot measures are $385 and $412, respectively, with a standard

deviation of $133 per square foot. As indicated in the sales per square foot estimates above, there issignificant variability in sales volumes at individual supermarkets, and evidence indicating that a

number of stores (and entire chains) are operating at well below the $473 national threshold previously

identified in this analysis. In fact, of the 50 grocery chains represented in the database (including theaggregated independent category), 35 chains, or 70 percent of the total, generate average sales volumes

below $473 per square foot. Further, more than half (54 percent) of the chains operate at sales volumes

below $400 per square foot, while 20 percent operate below $300 per square foot.

8 Trade Dimensions defines a “chain” as 11 or more stores; for supermarkets with fewer than 11 stores inCalifornia, the estimates have been aggregated and treated as a single group.


Table 4.4-6Estimate of Supermarket Sales (1999–2007)

YearVariable 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sales (thousands dollars)

Estimated Food Sales 60,016 63,702 66,787 67,597 70,883 73,683 90,742 105,558 112,390

Estimated Supermarket 45,012 47,777 50,090 50,698 53,162 55,262 68,057 79,169 84,293

Estimated Supermarket (2007 dollars) 55,106 57,244 58,610 58,303 59,683 60,490 72,140 81,299 84,293

Supermarkets (square feet)

Vons (316 E. Ocean Ave.) 20,668

Lucky/Albertsons (729 N. H Street) 26,000 - - - - - - - -

Vons (1309 N. H Street) 35,026 - - - - - - - -

Vons (729 N. H Street) - 54,982 54,982 54,982 54,982 54,982 54,982 54,982 54,982

Albertsons (1500 N. H Street) 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500

Vons (1124 W. Ocean Ave.) 22,040 22,040 22,040 22,040 22,040 22,040 22,040 22,040 22,040

Foods Co. (601 W. Central Ave.) - 58,520 58,520 58,520 58,520 58,520 58,520 58,520 58,520

Total 151,234 183,042 183,042 183,042 183,042 183,042 183,042 183,042 183,042

Sales per square foot (2007 dollars) $364 $313 $320 $319 $327 $330 $394 $444 $461

Notes:1 Taxable food sales are multiplied by a factor of 3.2 to estimate total food sales.2 Supermarket sales are assumed to account for 75 percent of supermarket sales.3 Nominal dollars are deflated by the implicit price deflator (personal consumption expenditures) to convert into 2007 dollars.4 Replaced and expanded to accommodate larger Vons supermarket.5 Closed due to opening of larger Vons market on 729 N. H Street.Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., December, 2009, Table II-3.


It should be noted that the data provided by Trade Dimensions are sales estimates and not the

supermarkets’ actual sales volumes. However, similar sales estimates from Trade Dimensions in the form

of their Retail Performance Reports provide store-level sales estimates for individual trade areas. For

trade areas which have been evaluated, the sales estimates in these reports are generally consistent with

actual sales data available from the BOE, suggesting that the Trade Dimensions’ sales estimates are

reasonably accurate. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Project GAFO Component

The urban decay study’s demand analysis indicates existing (year 2007) market support for $120.8 million

in GAFO (general merchandise, apparel and accessories, furniture and other sales) retail sales in the trade

area. Existing (2007) sales in these retail categories in the City is estimated at $98.0 million, suggesting

that approximately 19 percent of potential GAFO sales in the City are currently being lost to other

jurisdictions outside the trade area. In other words, there is currently an estimated $22.8 million ($120.8

million–$98.0 million) in unrealized GAFO demand in the City—demand which could be recaptured with

the development of additional retail facilities. The $22.8 million in unrealized demand translates into

approximately 76,100 square feet of additional GAFO retail space that could be currently supported in the

City. The recently developed Jerezano’s Plaza (indoor discount mall) and Michaels store absorbed

approximately 39,400 square feet9 of this residual demand, which reduces net support to approximately

36,700 square feet of additional GAFO retail space.

This finding of residual demand might first appear to be at odds with the current retail market in

Lompoc, considering the relatively high vacancy rate and recent closings of Mervyn’s and Big Lots—two

key GAFO retailers. However, the Mervyn’s closure was a result of the company’s bankruptcy filing, and

the existing vacancies are largely a result of the current severe economic downturn. As the economy

recovers and job growth begins to turn positive once again, consumer retail demand is expected to

increase, with subsequent positive absorption of retail space to follow.

Within the trade area, potential net demand for new GAFO space is projected to grow to approximately

41,900 square feet by 2011, 50,700 square feet by 2015, and to 61,200 square feet by 2020.

As indicated above, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 9,312 square feet of GAFO

retail space. Residual market support for GAFO retail space in the trade area in 2011 (the proposed

project’s first full year of operations) is projected to be approximately 41,900 square feet, indicating the

proposed project would absorb approximately 23 percent of the demand for new GAFO space. Based on

these findings, it is unlikely that the GAFO retail component of the expansion area would result in

9 Jerezano’s Plaza – 20,668 square feet; Michaels – 18,753 square feet.

4.4 Urban Decay


economic impacts to existing stores in the trade area, and it is therefore unlikely that any existing retail

stores will be forced to close due to the project. The proposed project’s added GAFO sales will not have

significant impacts on existing retailers.

Downtown Lompoc

The downtown area would not be vulnerable to urban decay conditions as a result of the proposed

project, based on the following points:

Although the downtown’s existing vacancy rate, estimated at 23 percent to 29 percent, is currentlyunacceptably high, there are no visible indications of urban decay (e.g., boarded-up windows,graffiti, etc.). The downtown area is well maintained with almost no litter or graffiti. Landscapingand street furniture further provide a sense of community, without any of the physical manifestationsof urban decay.

Some of the vacant buildings are relatively old and outdated relative to the space requirements ofmany contemporary retail tenants. Thus, some of these buildings may require some form ofrenovation to make them suitable for retail reuse. In any event, this is a preexisting issue indowntown that will need to be addressed with or without the development of the proposed project.

The downtown area has a strong representation of specialty retail, eating and drinkingestablishments, and service-based businesses, all of which offer a mix of merchandise and servicesthat are not directly comparable to the type of goods available at the existing Walmart store.Moreover, downtown merchants already coexist with the existing Walmart store, and the newcomponent of the expansion area is primarily devoted to supermarket sales. In this regard—sincethere is not a traditional supermarket located in the downtown area—it is likely the case that thedowntown area is actually less vulnerable to competitive impacts than the rest of the City. Since thereare unlikely to be downtown vacancies resulting from the proposed project, the conditions whichwould potentially result in urban decay would not occur.

Appendix 4.4 of this EIR provides photographic documentation of existing conditions in the downtown

area and of a successful recent example of reinvestment in a major retail property in the area.

Conclusion

The proposed project would create more competition for goods in the local retail and grocery markets;

however, as shown above, it would not cause a chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies

that would threaten to dilapidate or decay the urban area in the City of Lompoc. Overall, the expansion is

too small to have a tangible effect on Lompoc’s physical landscape. It is important to note that the

Bakersfield Citizens case10, the seminal case on urban decay, involved two new ground-up Walmart stores

that were part of two new shopping centers totaling approximately 1,070,000 square feet. This proposed

10 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.

4.4 Urban Decay


project only involves 38,050 square feet (or 0.036 percent of the development contemplated in

Bakersfield). Accordingly, although in a worst case scenario one supermarket could close, there is no

foreseeable significant change to Lompoc’s strong community fabric evident in the upkeep of City streets,

and the lack of major graffiti, litter, or other tangible signs of urban decay.

Overall Potential for Urban Decay

Although the current vacancies in the downtown region, and any potential further vacancies, are clearly

undesirable from the standpoint of commercial property owners, it is not likely to result in urban decay.

Urban decay is a potential consequence of a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies

when property owners reduce property maintenance activities below that required to keep their

properties in good condition. Property owners are likely to make reductions in maintenance under

conditions where they see little likelihood of future positive returns. Store closures and vacancies, in and

of themselves, do not meet the above criteria. See Appendix 4.4, pp. 35–37, for pictures of the downtown

area.

While the closure of a business is clearly an impact to the owners and employees of that business, within

the context of CEQA it is only significant if it results in sustained vacancies which in turn result in

deterioration of the physical condition of the vacant building(s), thereby affecting the environment. For

the reasons discussed below, property owners would have sufficient economic incentives to maintain

these properties based on the potential for some type of retail reuse. Therefore, potential impacts on

urban decay would be less than significant.

Reuse Suitability of Specific Potential Vacancies

As indicated in the urban decay’s demand analysis, the grocery component of the proposed project could

potentially lead to the closing of one of the City’s four existing supermarkets. Given that the City was not

privy to the sales performance or overall financial strength of individual existing supermarkets, it is not

possible to reliably predict which of the four major supermarkets would be most likely to close. However,

based on recent examples of successful retenanting of vacant supermarkets and big-box stores, reuse

potentials are expected to be similar for all four properties.

As shown in the pictures in Appendix 4.4, all four of the supermarkets are well maintained and would be

strong candidates for retail reuse if one were to become vacant. Although the Vons store located on West

Ocean Avenue is a relatively older building, it is still well maintained and the surrounding area does not

show any signs of urban decay. In the immediate vicinity of this store is a well-maintained park and

well-kept residential neighborhoods. In addition, its relatively smaller size (22,040 square feet) would

make it suitable for multiple types of reuse options (i.e., not just a large single user such as another major

4.4 Urban Decay


supermarket). Accordingly, although it is possible that this or another store in Lompoc may close, there is

no reason to believe that conditions of urban decay would ensue.

Under the worst-case scenario of one of the existing four major supermarkets closing, Table 4.4-7, Net

Supportable Square Feet of Retail Space, projects the demand for new retail space (i.e., over and above

the existing amount of retail space) in the trade area from 2009 to 2020. As shown on the table, demand

for new retail space is expected to reach approximately 69,900 square feet by 2011. This is well over the

amount of vacant space that would result from one potential supermarket closing discussed above, and

Lompoc does not exhibit any signs of urban decay at existing vacancy levels. The potential vacant space

could be reoccupied with a national retail chain currently not located in the City (e.g., a specialty retailer

such as Bed, Bath and Beyond or an off-price apparel retailer such as a T.J. Maxx or Marshalls) or by a

local independent retailer. In the City, the urban study has identified five examples over the last 10 years

of closed supermarkets and big-box stores that have been reoccupied by new retail and service-related

tenants:

In May 2001, a Vons market located at 1309 North H Street was closed and replaced by a new Vonslocated at 729 North H Street in the Lompoc Plaza shopping center. The former Vons store wasreoccupied by a 99 Cent Only store in August 2001.

As a result of its bankruptcy proceedings and nationwide store closures, the K-mart store located atthe 1000 block of North H Street closed in March 2003. The store was subsequently reconfigured andsubdivided and reoccupied by Sears (July 2005), Dollar Tree and Coast Home Furnishings (both inearly 2007).

A Michaels arts and crafts store in early 2008 reoccupied a former Factory 2U store, which closed inearly 2004.

A former Vons supermarket located at 316 East Ocean Avenue which closed in 1999 was recently(mid 2008) converted into Jerezano’s Plaza (indoor discount mall).

A former Office Max store, located in the existing Walmart-anchored center, which closed in 2002was recently (December 2008) converted into an In Shape City Fitness center.11

11 This space remained vacant for a relatively long period of time (approximately six years) due in part to the factthat Office Max was contractually responsible for the lease after it vacated the building. See “L.A. Investors BuyLompoc Corners Shopping Center,” Lompoc Record, July 31, 2007.

4.4 Urban Decay


Table 4.4-7Net Supportable Square Feet of Retail Space

YearRetail Category 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2020

Demand1

GAFO 80,444 81,259 84,906 90,115 94,283 100,625

Food 4,832 5,316 7,478 10,567 13,038 16,789

Eating and Drinking 17,001 17,234 18,278 19,769 20,962 22,777

Building Materials/Hardware 12,460 12,738 13,980 15,754 17,174 19,334

Automotive Parts 314 373 638 1,017 1,321 1,782

Services at 10% of Total Space 12,783 12,991 13,920 15,247 16,309 17,924

Sub Total 127,834 129,911 139,200 152,470 163,085 179,240

Square Feet Absorbed by Proposed Project2

GAFO (9,312) (9,312) (9,312) (9,312) (9,312) (9,312)

Supermarket (32,121) (32,121) (32,121) (32,121) (32,121) (32,121)

Square Feet Absorbed, 2007-20083

GAFO (39,421) (39,421) (39,421) (39,421) (39,421) (39,421)

Net Demand

GAFO 31,711 32,526 36,173 41,382 45,550 51,892

Food (Supermarkets) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eating and Drinking 17,001 17,234 18,278 19,769 20,962 22,777

Building Materials/Hardware 12,460 12,738 13,980 15,754 17,174 19,334

Automotive Parts 314 373 638 1,017 1,321 1,728

Services at 10% of Total Space 6,832 6,986 7,674 8,658 9,445 10,643

Net Total 68,317 69,857 76,743 86,581 94,451 106,428

Notes:1 See Table III-10 and Appendix A, Table A-11 in Appendix 4.4 of this EIR.2 See Section 3.0, Project Description.3 Square feet absorbed by Jerezano’s Plaza (indoor discount mall) and Michaels after base year 2007.Parentheses denote a loss or negative number.Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. and the City of Lompoc.

4.4 Urban Decay


For the reasons discussed above, along with the recent successful experience of retenanting vacant

supermarket and big-box retail store spaces, a closed supermarket is unlikely to be subject to extended

vacancy. Under these circumstances, the property owners would have a strong economic incentive to

maintain the buildings in a condition suitable for retenanting. It is recognized that few national retailers

are expanding in the current challenging economic climate, in response to a significant drop in private

household consumption. However, most experts expect the economy to begin to recover. As the

population increases, the economy recovers, and job growth becomes positive once again, consumer

demand is expected to increase. In response, national and independent retailers will likely begin to add

new stores to meet the increase in demand. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts to the market are based on all known pending retail projects (including the proposed

project) in the trade area. At the time of the urban study, there are two known planned and/or pending

commercial retail projects in the trade area. Table 4.4-8, Planned/Pending Retail Projects, provides the

name, location, square feet, and status of each project.

Table 4.4-8Planned/Pending Retail Projects

Project Location Size (square feet) StatusPad Building Palm Square – 1025 block

of North H Street5,000 Plan Check

Mini-Market 516 North I Street 700 Under Construction

Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. and the City of Lompoc , Appendix 4.4.

There are not expected to be any significant cumulative impacts resulting from the development of the

commercial pad building at the Palm Square shopping center or the mini market at 516 North I Street.

Although the potential tenant for the pad building is unknown, residual retail demand—as discussed

above in Project GAFO Component, would be more than sufficient to support retail use of this space. In

addition, the mini market currently under construction is only 700 sf and, based on its relatively small

size, is expected to have a very limited impact in the grocery category. Cumulative impacts would be less

than significant.

4.4 Urban Decay


MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required.




4.5 ENERGY, ELECTRICITY, AND NATURAL GAS

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the electricity and natural gas impacts

resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this section of the

EIR is based on the energy, electricity, and natural gas technical study prepared for the project by Christopher A.

Joseph & Associates in December 2009. Refer to Appendix 4.5 of this EIR for a copy of this study, which includes a

description of the existing environmental setting and utility providers as well as a quantitative analysis of the

proposed project’s energy consumption.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Electricity

The City of Lompoc operates its own electrical utility,1 The City of Lompoc is close to meeting the

renewable energy goal set by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of 33 percent by the year 2020. The

City’s portfolio includes approximately 31 percent renewable energy. The City of Lompoc has achieved

this goal by signing a long-term contract to purchase a larger amount of geothermal-generated energy,

which is primarily produced at plants in Lake County, California. In addition, the City also purchases

energy generated by a dam on the Stanislaus River. As a member of the Northern California Power

Agency (NCPA), the City of Lompoc owns a portion of both the Lake County plants and the dam on the

Stanislaus River. In addition, Lompoc has also purchased a share of the energy that will be generated at a

natural gas power plant being built near Lodi, California, which is expected to be operational by 2012.2

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), 13.5 percent of the energy consumption in the

state comes from renewable generation resources in 2008. The City’s electricity demand varies

throughout the year between 16 and 26 megawatts (MW).3

Natural Gas

The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service to the City4 through existing

gas mains located under the streets which can be extended to serve new projects. Natural gas service

1 City of Lompoc, “Electric Division,” http://www.cityoflompoc.com/utilities/electric.htm, Accessed December 16,2009.

2 Wallace, Glenn. “City Ponders Power Needs as Rates Rise.” Lompoc Record.com, (November 28, 2009).http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/article_7ab67cc6-dcba-11de-93f7-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story

3 Conversation between Christopher A. Joseph & Associates and Larry Silva, City of Lompoc, (August 26, 2009).4 Southern California Gas Company, “Communities We Serve,” http://www.socalgas.com/community

/communities.shtml, Accessed on December 16, 2009.

4.5 Electricity, Energy, and Natural Gas


must be provided in accordance with SCGC policies and extension rules on file with the California Public

Utilities Commission (CPUC) at the time contractual agreements are made. The viability of natural gas is

based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SCGC is under

the jurisdiction of the CPUC, but can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies.

According to a CPUC presentation given at the Integrated Energy Policy Report workshop on May 14,

2009, the natural gas infrastructure delivers gas supplies to over 10 million customers using 100,000 miles

of pipelines and over 200 billion cubic feet (bcf) of storage capacity. Over 80 percent (or 4.5 to 5 bcf per

day) of California’s total consumption is delivered on this system.5

The CPUC has several ways of encouraging or requiring new infrastructure. One example is to follow

litigation/settlement proceedings, such as the SCGC storage expansion per Biennial Cost Allocation

Proceedings (BCAP). In Phase 1 of the current BCAP, SCGC will expand storage inventory (7 bcf) and

injection capacity (145 million cubic feet) over the 2009–2014 period.6

California produces about 15 percent of the natural gas it uses. The remaining 85 percent is obtained from

sources outside of the state: 62 percent from the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas, and 23 percent

from Canada.

In 2008, SCGC provided deliveries of 2,766 million cf of natural gas per day.7

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

State Regulations

California Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC regulates investor-owned electric and natural gas utilities operating in California, including

SCGC. The City operates its own electric utility, which is governed by the City Council. The CPUC

regulates the natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over the utilities'

transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing.8

5 California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division, “CPUC Regulation and Natural Gas Infrastructure,”http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Gas/GasIssuesReports.htm, (May 14, 2009).

6 California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division, “CPUC Regulation and Natural Gas Infrastructure,”http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Gas/GasIssuesReports.htm, (May 14, 2009).

7 California Gas and Electric Utilities, California Gas Report Supplement, (2009) 27. http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/cgr.shtml.

8 California Public Utilities Commission, “Natural Gas,” http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Gas, AccessedDecember 2009.



The CPUC policy on natural gas infrastructure and capacity is to:

allow gas utilities to gain better access to new sources of supply, develop a diverse supply portfolio,and have adequate storage capacity for core procurement requirements;

ensure adequate, diverse utility natural gas pipeline and storage infrastructure for utilities andconsumers;

assure delivery of supplies with high degree of certainty, especially for core customers,

minimize transmission constraints,

provide access to diverse portfolio of supplies,

reduce the likelihood of price spikes,

allow more gas to be stored when prices are low,

allow customers to match supplies with requirements, and

obtain fair access to utility transmission systems for suppliers and pipelines.

California Code of Regulations

Energy consumption by new buildings in California is regulated by the State Building Energy Efficiency

Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The efficiency standards apply to

new construction of both residential and non-residential buildings and regulate insulation, glazing,

lighting, shading, and water- and space-heating systems. Building efficiency standards are enforced

through the local building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy

standards for new buildings, provided that standards meet or exceed those in Title 24 guidelines.

Local Regulations

Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District Recommendations

In addition to Title 24, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) recommends energy

conservation measures as well as green building materials and practices.9 The following are examples of

non-mandatory measures provided by SBAPCD that go beyond Title 24 compliance:

Photovoltaic and wind generators

Duct system within the building thermal envelope, or insulated to R-8

9 Rincon Consultants, City of Lompoc General Plan Update, Issue Paper on Noise and Air Quality Issues, (July 2008)7-8.



Passive cooling strategies: Passive or fan-aided cooling planned for or designed into structure, acupola or roof opening for hot air venting or underground cooling tubes

Outdoor lighting designed for high efficiency, solar-powered or controlled by motion detectors

Natural lighting in buildings

Building siting and orientation to reduce energy use

Summer shading and wind protection measures to increase energy efficiency

Use of concrete or other non-polluting materials for parking lots instead of asphalt

Use of landscaping to shade buildings and parking lots

Installation of energy efficient appliances and lighting

Installation of mechanical air conditioners and refrigeration units that use non-ozone depletingchemicals

Installation of sidewalks and bike paths

Installation of covered bus stops to encourage use of mass transportation

Display kiosk with air quality and alternative transportation educational materials

At least 50 percent of exterior of local masonry; plaster or cementitious siding; recycled, salvaged orcertified sustainably harvested wood; recycled roofing material or combination cement-fiber roofing;30-year rated life on minimum 50 percent of roof

IMPACT ANALYSIS


Based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project would be considered to

result in a significant public services impact if it would:

result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy; or

result in a substantial increase in demand or transmission service, resulting in the need for new orexpanded sources of energy supply or new or expanded energy delivery systems or infrastructure.

According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following factors shall be considered with

respect to electricity and natural gas as applicable:

a. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for eachstage of the project’s life cycle including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. Ifappropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.



b. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additionalcapacity.

c. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

d. The degree to which the project complies with the existing energy standards.

e. The effects of the project on energy resources.

f. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficienttransportation alternatives.

Project Impacts

Project Energy Requirements

Electricity

The proposed project would expand a net total of 38,050 square feet (sf). This would consist of the

proposed building expansion of 41,621 sf, a building demolition of 188 sf, and a reduction of the garden

center from 8,768 sf to 5,385 sf (or a net loss of 3,383 sf). As indicated in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Project

Electricity Consumption, the proposed project’s net total increase would consume 561,418 kilowatt hours

(kWH) per year (or a consumption rate of 0.064 megawatts).10

Table 4.5-1Proposed Project Electricity Consumption

Land Use Size (sf) Consumption Rate1 (kWH/sf/yr) Total (kwH/yr)Walmart Expansion 41,621 13.55 563,965

Outdoor Garden Center(reduction)

(3,383) N/A2 --

Minor demolition(reduction)

(188) 13.55 (2,547)

Total Net Additional Consumption 561,418

sf = square feetkWH = kilowatt hoursyr = yearsIn the absence of consumption rates for the City of Lompoc, representative consumption rates were taken from the South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD).1 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, Table A9-11-A, Electricity Usage Rate.2 No consumption rate is listed for this use within the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, the consumption is expected to be

minimal and negligible.

10 561,418 kWH per year is the equivalent of 561.418 MWH per year. This is an average consumption of 0.64 MWH.



Natural Gas

The proposed project would expand a net total of 38,050 sf. This would include a proposed building

expansion of 41,621 sf, a building demolition of 188 sf, and a reduction of the garden center from 8,768 sf

to 5,385 sf (a net loss of 3,383 sf). According to Table 4.5-2, Proposed Project Natural Gas Consumption,

below, the proposed project’s net total increase would consume 120,156 cubic feet (cf) of natural gas per

month (or 4,005.2 cf per day).11

Table 4.5-2Proposed Project Natural Gas Consumption

Land Use Size (sf) Consumption Rate1 (cf/sf/mo) Total (cf/mo)WalmartExpansion

41,621 2.9 120,701

Outdoor GardenCenter(reduction)

(3,383) N/A2 --

Minordemolition(reduction)

(188) 2.9 (545)

Total Net Additional Consumption 120,156

sf = square feetcf = cubic footmo = month (assumed to be 30 days)In the absence of consumption rates for the City of Lompoc, representative consumption rates were taken from the South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD).1 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, Table A9-12-A, Natural Gas Usage Rate.2 No consumption rate is listed for this use within the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, the consumption is expected to be

minimal and negligible.

Building Sustainability Features

The proposed project would incorporate a variety of sustainability features that would reduce its demand

for resources, use non-toxic materials, and promote waste reduction. According to Section 3.0, Project

Description, and the climate change analysis completed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, these features

include those described below.

11 Assuming 30 days per month.



Construction

Poured Concrete

Cement production is estimated to produce 7 percent of all greenhouse gas (GHG). All poured concrete

for the expansion would include up to 15 to 20 percent fly ash. It is estimated that production of one

pound of fly ash reduces one pound of GHG that would otherwise be emitted from cement production.

Recycling

The expansion area would include large amounts of recycled material.

Steel Recycling

Current construction standards for Walmart buildings include a substantial amount of recycled steel.

New stores are built of nearly 100 percent recycled structural steel. Walmart structural steel suppliers use

high-efficiency electric arc furnaces that use 50 percent less energy to manufacture recycled steel. Using

recycled steel means less mining for new steel, and it is a material that can be repeatedly recycled.

Recycled Plastic

All of the plastic baseboards, and many of the plastic shelving, are manufactured from recycled material.

Operation/Maintenance

Energy Efficient HVAC Units

The new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units will utilize, "super" high-efficiency

packaged HVAC units. While the industry standard EER (Energy Efficiency Ratio) is 9.0, the proposed

new units are rated at approximately 12.1 to 14.3, which is approximately 4 to 17 percent more efficient

than required by California Title 24.

Central Energy Management

The store would be equipped with an energy management system that will be monitored and controlled

from the Home Office in Bentonville, Arkansas. The system enables Walmart to monitor energy usage,

analyze refrigeration temperatures, observe HVAC and lighting performance, and adjust lighting,

temperature, and/or refrigeration set points 24 hours per day, seven days per week.



Light Sensors

The building would include occupancy sensors in non-sales floor areas. These sensors detect activity in a

room and automatically turn off the lights when the space is unoccupied.

Dehumidifying

The building would include a dehumidifying system that allows Walmart to operate the store at a higher

temperature, use less energy, and allow the refrigeration system to operate more efficiently.

Food Displays

The building will include a film on the freezer doors that combats condensation and requires no energy,

unlike heating systems that are typically used to combat condensation.

Water Heating

The new grocery area will capture waste heat from the refrigeration equipment to heat water for the

kitchen prep areas of the store.

White Roofs

The existing store has a "white" membrane roof, unlike most applications that are a darker color. The

expansion area would also include a "white" membrane roof. The high solar reflectivity of this membrane

results in lowering the "cooling" load by about 8 percent.

Interior Lighting Retrofit Program

All lighting in the store would utilize T-8 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts, which is one of the

most efficient lighting on the market. The Walmart store would also use only low-mercury lamps, which

are not considered to be a hazardous material and are considered to be very "green friendly.” Although

these lamps can be disposed of with no special precautions, out of concern for the environment, Walmart

has volunteered to recycle these lamps instead of simply depositing them in a landfill.

LED Signage Illumination

All internally illuminated building signage would use light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. This

application of LED technology is over 70 percent more energy-efficient than fluorescent illumination.

With lamp life ranging to 100,000 hours, using LEDs significantly reduces the need to manufacture and

dispose of fluorescent lamps.



Water-Conserving Fixtures

All new restroom sinks would include sensor-activated low-flow faucets. The existing restrooms would

also be remodeled to include these new faucets. The low-flow faucets reduce usage by 84 percent. The

sensors save approximately 20 percent of the remaining 16 percent usage over similar manual operated

systems.

Ozone-Friendly Refrigerants

Walmart has converted to less ozone-depleting refrigerants as they have become available. It uses R404a

for the refrigeration equipment. For air conditioning, Walmart has converted to R410a refrigerant. The

existing store currently uses this technology, and the expansion area would also incorporate it.

Impacts on Local and Regional Energy Supplies and Resources

Electricity

Project Impacts

The City's electric utility undertakes expansion and/or modification of electricity distribution

infrastructure to serve future growth in the City as required in the normal process of providing electrical

service. Further, as discussed above, the City purchases renewable energy from various sources namely

geothermal and hydroelectricity. Also in 2012 the City will purchase additional energy from a natural

gas power plant being built near Lodi. There are no existing or foreseeable supply constraints that would

prevent the City from obtaining additional energy resources. Electricity demand varies throughout the

year between 16 and 26 MW. Without factoring in the project design features, the proposed project

would consume electricity at a rate of approximately 64 megawatts. The current available supply is

adequate to accommodate the needs of the proposed project.

Further, as the proposed project would be an expansion of an existing building, necessary infrastructure

is in place and there would be no need for new distribution infrastructure or capacity-enhancing

alterations to existing facilities. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Similarly, the cumulative projects must also abide by the same statutes, regulations, and programs that

mandate or encourage energy conservation. Utility providers are also required to plan for necessary

upgrades and expansions to their systems to ensure that adequate service will be provided for other



projects and there is no evidence to suggest that the City will not be able to purchase the necessary

electricity. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas

Project Impacts

As shown above in Table 4.5-2, the proposed project is anticipated to consume approximately 120,156

cubic feet per square foot per month (cf/sf/mo), or 4,005.2 cf of natural gas per day, over existing

conditions. In comparison, in 2008, SCGC provided deliveries of 2,766 million cf of natural gas per day.12

Therefore, relative to the projected daily send out of 2,766 million cf of natural gas, the daily consumption

of natural gas associated with the proposed project would be approximately 0.0001 percent. In addition,

the projected natural gas consumption by the proposed project is provided as a conservative estimate and

does not take into account the energy conservation measures detailed above. As such, the actual natural

gas consumption of the proposed project is expected to be much less than 4,055.2 cf per day. Further, as

the proposed project would be an expansion of an existing building, there is already a natural gas

connection point and there is no need for expansion of distribution infrastructure or capacity-enhancing

alterations to existing facilities. Consequently, project-level impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Similarly, the cumulative projects must also abide by the same statutes, regulations, and programs that

mandate or encourage energy conservation. Utility providers are also required to plan for necessary

upgrades and expansions to their systems to ensure that adequate service will be provided for other

projects and there is no evidence to suggest that SCGC will not be able to service them. As such,

cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Effects on Peak and Base Period Demands for Energy

The City of Lompoc does not classify electric usage into peak and non-peak periods.13 Nevertheless, as

discussed above, the project would incorporate sustainability features that would limit energy usage

based on occupancy of the store. These features include central energy management (which would

monitor and control energy usage from the Home Office) and light sensors (which would detect activity

in a room and turn off lights when a space is unoccupied).

12 California Gas and Electric Utilities, California Gas Report Supplement, (2009) 27. http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/cgr.shtml.

13 City of Lompoc, Utility Department, “Utility Rate Information,” http://www.cityoflompoc.com/utilities/rateinfo.htm, Accessed December 2009.



Project Compliance with Existing Energy Standards

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations establishes energy conservation standards for new

construction, including residential and non-residential buildings. The proposed project would comply,

and in many cases exceed, Title 24 energy conservation standards for insulation, glazing, lighting,

shading, and water- and space-heating systems in all new construction. With modern energy-efficient

construction materials and practices, as well as compliance with Title 24 standards, the proposed project

would be consistent with the state’s energy conservation standards and, therefore, would not conflict

with adopted energy conservation plans.

Projected Transportation Energy Use Requirement

The transportation energy use requirement of the project would come in the form of trucks making

deliveries to the project site as well as visitors driving to the site in their personal vehicles. It is important

to note that the project involves an expansion of the existing Walmart store within an urban area, and it is

therefore likely that most people who would visit the expanded store already visit the current store, or

would be passing by or driving in the immediate vicinity. Further, the City of Lompoc Transit (COLT)

provides public transit service within the City of Lompoc, which would provide another means for area

residents to visit the site. Bus route 2 stops at the Walmart Store/Central Avenue stop approximately

every 15 minutes, and route 2A stops at the Walmart Store/Central Avenue stop approximately every

30 minutes. Service is available from 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on

Saturday.14 Accordingly, impacts to transportation energy use would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures are required.



14 City of Lompoc, Public Works Department, “City of Lompoc Transit (COLT),” http://www.cityoflompoc.com/transit/colt.htm, Accessed December 2009.


4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

INTRODUCTION

This section addresses hazards associated with the Project that may potentially affect public health and safety or

degrade the environment. This section summarizes the findings of two reports: (1) Phase I Environmental Site

Assessment (ESA) Report, Walmart Store No. 1989, APN 093-450-036, Lompoc, California, prepared by

Rincon Consultants (see Appendix 4.6); and (2) Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, prepared by

Federal Aviation Administration (see Appendix 8.0). The purpose of the reports was to identify the environmental

conditions on the site, including potential aviation hazards and the likely presence of any hazardous substances or

conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material threat of a release into structures, onto

property, into the ground, ground water, or surface drainages on the site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Definitions

Hazardous Material

A number of properties may cause a substance to be considered hazardous, including toxicity,

ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. A hazardous material is defined as

a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or

physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either: (1) cause, or significantly contribute

to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible

illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when

improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. (Title 22, California

Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 66084)

Hazardous Waste

A “hazardous waste” is defined as “any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded or recycled.”(California Health and Safety Code, Section 25124) In addition, hazardous wastes occasionally may be

generated by actions that change the composition of previously nonhazardous materials. The same

criterion that render a material hazardous make a waste hazardous: toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or

reactivity.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Physical Setting

Site Description and Land Use

The project site is an irregularly shaped, approximately 12-acre property located at 701 West Central

Avenue, Lompoc, California. The project site is located south of the Lompoc airport and north of Central

Avenue between North O Street and North L Street. The property is identified as a Walmart store and

associated parking lot (assessor’s parcel no. [APN] 093-450-036). The site is located in an area that is

primarily comprised of commercial and residential land uses and vacant land. Properties in the vicinity

of the site include shopping center stores to the east, southeast, and southwest; to the west is North

O Street, vacant land, and Aceco Equipment Rentals; to the south is West Central Avenue and residential

housing; tract; and to the north is a wine facility and Lompoc airport.

Geology

The project site is located within the Transverse Ranges Province of Southern California, identified by the

east-west–trending mountain ranges and valleys. The Transverse Ranges are comprised of rocks that are

progressively older from west to east. East-west–trending folds and faults predominate. Valleys, faults,

and downwarps separate mountain ranges.

According to the Geologic Map of the Lompoc Quadrangle (Dibblee, 1988), the site is underlain by

Quaternary-age valley and floodplain deposits consisting of silts, sands, and gravels. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey for this area indicates that the soil type present in the site

vicinity is Mocho silty clay loam. The Mocho series consists of well-drained loams developed from

recently deposited alluvium. The Mocho silty clay loam occurs on floodplains in the Lompoc Valley.

Surface runoff is very slow in these soils and erosion hazard is none to slight.

Groundwater

The project site is located within the Santa Ynez Valley groundwater basin. The basin surrounds the

lower reach of the Santa Ynez River and is bordered on the south by the Lompoc Hills, on the north by

the Purisima Hills, on the east by a topographic divide (the Santa Rita Hills) and on the west by the

Pacific Ocean. The basin is divided into three horizontal layers, which have points of hydrologic

continuity and exchange limited amounts of water.

GeoTracker, an online database managed by the California State Water Resources Control Board

(SWRCB), was searched for properties with groundwater information in the immediate vicinity of the

site. Based on information reviewed on GeoTracker, depth to groundwater ranges from 33 to 43 feet



below ground surface approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the site. The direction of groundwater flow

appears to flow to the east, southeast, and southwest.

Phase I ESA Methodology and Findings

The Phase I ESA was prepared in conformance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Standard E: 1527-05 Environmental Site Assessment Practice. The investigation included a review of current

federal, state, and county databases of known and potential environmentally impacted properties; a

review of available historical aerial photographs and historical maps; a review of reasonably available

government agency records; a review of environmental reports and documents pertaining to the site at

the City of Lompoc, and a project site reconnaissance to observe current conditions at the project site.

Federal and State Database Review

A government database report of available federal, state, and county agency databases, prepared by

GeoSearch, Inc., was reviewed to identify government-regulated properties having knownenvironmental conditions and potential environmental concerns on the project site. Off-site locations of

concern within a maximum 0.25-mile radius from the project site identified by GeoSearch were also

addressed. Descriptions of the government databases reviewed are detailed in the GeoSearch report. Also

included in the GeoSearch report are maps illustrating the location of listed properties relative to the

location of the project site. A complete copy of the GeoSearch report, dated September 13, 2007, is

provided in Appendix 4.6 of this Draft EIR.

The pertinent findings of the government database review are summarized below:

The project site, Walmart Store no. 1989, was listed in the databases searched by GeoSearch. The subjectproperty was listed in the Hazard Waste Tanner Summary (HWTS),1 Statewide EnvironmentalEvaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS)2 and Underground Storage Tank – Certified UnifiedProgram Agencies (USTCUPA)3 databases. According to the HWTS database, the Walmart Store is agenerator of metal sludge, photochemical waste, organic solution waste, unspecified sludge waste,oil-containing waste, hydrocarbon solvents (benzene, hexane or stoddard) and oxygenated solvents(acetone, butanol, and ethyl acetate). The SWEEPS and USTCUPA databases list Walmart as an activefacility with an underground storage tank (UST) used for the storage of waste oil. No violations or

1 HWTS is prepared from information extracted from copies of hazardous manifests received each year by theDepartment of Toxic Substances Control.

2 SWEEPS contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank listings locations from the StateWater Resources Control Board. The hazardous substances stored within these tasks include, but are notrestricted to, petroleum products, industrial solvents and other materials. The listing is no longer updated ormaintained.

3 This database consists of underground storage tank permit data submitted from the Certified Unified ProgramAgencies directly to the State Water Resources Control Board.



indications of an unauthorized release were indicated for the subject property in the database report.Further information regarding the UST is in the Agency File Review section below.

One adjacent property (Aceco Equipment – 1401 North O Street) was listed in the databases searchedby GeoSearch. Aceco Equipment is reported in the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act –Generator (RCRAG),4 Facility Registration System (USFRS),5 and HWTS databases as a small-quantity generator of aqueous solution of organic residues less than 10 percent. No additionalinformation was provided for Aceco Equipment. No violations or indications of an unauthorizedrelease were indicated for the Aceco Equipment property in the database report. Based on the lack ofan unauthorized release at this address, this facility does not appear to pose an environmentalconcern to the project site at this time.

Historical Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review

Copies of historical aerial photographs dated 1938, 1943, 1954, 1956, 1967, 1975, 1978, 1989, 1994, 2005,

and USGS Topographic Maps dated 1947, 1959, 1974, and 1982 were reviewed to identify government-

regulated properties having known environmental conditions and potential environmental concerns

within the vicinity of the project site. Review of these materials indicates that the project site has been

utilized for agricultural purposes between at least 1938 through 1989. The project site has been in its

current configuration since at least 1994. Refer to Appendix 4.6 for a complete discussion of the historic

aerial photography and topographic map review.

Agency File Review

Project Site

Documents for the project site maintained by the Santa Barbara County Fire Prevention Division

(SBCFPD) indicate that a 1,000-gallon, double-walled, fiberglass UST was installed at the Walmart site in

1993. The UST was used to store waste oil. In 1999 the UST and associated piping were removed from the

site. Cracks, breaches, or failures were not observed in the tank. Following removal of the tank, a soil

sample was collected from the bottom of the southern sidewall of the excavation and two soil samples

were collected from beneath the piping. Soil samples were analyzed for total recoverable petroleum

hydrocarbons (TPH-oil) by EPA Method 8015; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX)

by EPA Method 8020; and VOCs by EPA Method 8260. None of the soil samples had detectable

4 This database includes information on properties that generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose ofhazardous waste. A small quantity generator (SQG) is a facility that generates between 100 to 1,000 kilogramsper month of hazardous waste. A large quantity generator (LQG) is one that generates greater than 1,000kilograms per month of hazardous waste.

5 The EPA’s Office of Environmental Information developed the Facility Registry System as the centrally manageddatabase that identifies facilities, sites or places subject to environmental regulations, or of environmental interest.



concentrations of TPH-oil, BTEX, or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A letter dated December 20,

1999, from the SBCFPD indicated that closure regarding the tank was granted.

Also included in the SBCFPD file was a permit application from 2000 for the installation of two USTs and

associated dispensers/piping for a gasoline station to be located on the northeast corner of Central and

O Street. However, a note in the file indicated that the project was canceled due to public concerns.

Adjacent Sites

The online database of release sites managed by the California State Water Resources Control Board

(GeoTracker) was reviewed to determine if reported release sites were located in the vicinity of the

project site. The project site and adjacent properties were not listed in the GeoTracker database. Based on

information reviewed on GeoTracker, two reported release sites are located between 0.25 and 0.5 mile

from the project site as follows:

ARCO #5889 - 1400 North H Street (approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the subject property). In 1999 theARCO site was identified with a release of gasoline which affected groundwater. Depth togroundwater measured beneath the ARCO site reportedly has ranged from about 33 to 43 feet belowground surface. The direction of groundwater flow beneath the ARCO site appears to range flow tothe east, southeast, and southwest (away from or cross gradient to the project site). Quarterlygroundwater monitoring is currently underway at the ARCO site.

Thompson’s Exxon Station - 1337 North H Street (approximately 1,800 feet to the east -southeast of the subjectproperty). In 1988 a release of unleaded gasoline that affected groundwater occurred at theThompson’s Exxon Station. Site assessment and verification monitoring were conducted in 1988. Aremediation plan was submitted in 1989. The case was reportedly closed in 1996. However, it appearsthat the case was reopened and remediation consisting of excavation and groundwater pumping andtreatment at the Exxon site was started in 2000. No further information regarding the Exxon site wasavailable on the GeoTracker database.

Based on the reported groundwater flow direction to the east to southeast, neither of these release sites

would be expected to affect the subject property.

State of California Division of Oil and Gas Records Review

According to online resources provided by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil,

Gas and Geothermal Resources, no oil wells are located on the project site. The nearest oil well to the

project site is an abandoned and plugged oil well located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the site.

The well is identified as TEPI – Lompoc Community Seven (NCT-1).



Project Site Reconnaissance

Descriptions of Project Site

The project site is developed with a Walmart retail store on the northern portion of the site. The main

store is a one-story structure and includes an attached Walmart Tire and Lube Express and garden center.

The Tire and Lube Express has a belowground “pit” to facilitate automotive repairs. A McDonald’s

restaurant is located inside the Walmart store (within the southeastern corner of the structure). The

remaining portions of the site are paved parking areas and driveways, and landscaped areas within the

parking areas. Access to the site is available from shopping center entrances off of North O Street, West

Central Avenue, and North L Street. Water, sewer and electrical services are provided by the City of

Lompoc. The Gas Company provides natural gas service. Solid waste collection and disposal services are

provided by private vendors.

The topographic elevation of the project site appeared similar to the adjacent (and surrounding)

properties, situated at an elevation of approximately 85 feet above mean sea level. The presence of fill

material was not apparent when the existing site topography was compared to the topography of the

adjacent (and surrounding) sites. In addition, the topography of the site appeared similar to the most

recent topographic map (1982 Lompoc Quadrangle). The presence of fill material was not apparent when

comparing the existing topography to the 1982 topographic map.

Current or Past Uses at the Project Site and Surrounding Area

Because the project site is currently surrounded by vacant, fallow agricultural land (to the west), a wine

storage facility to the north, and newer residential and commercial developments to the south and east,

based on the site reconnaissance, it is possible that the project site may have been in agricultural use in

the past. Based on the historical research conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, the project site was

formerly in agricultural use from at least 1938 through at least 1989.

Interior and Exterior Observations

Storage Tanks

During the site reconnaissance, Rincon observed aboveground storage tanks on the project site as

follows:

Two unused motor oil tanks and two waste oil tanks were observed in the “pit” located beneath thewestern portion of the Tire and Lube Express structure.



Two plastic storage receptacles containing used oil filters were observed outside (to the southeast) ofthe Tire and Lube Express structure.

During the site reconnaissance, manhole covers for an underground grease trap operated by the

McDonald’s restaurant were observed on the eastern portion of the project site, adjacent to the southeast

corner of the store.

Drums

During the site reconnaissance, Rincon observed storage drums on the project site as follows:

Several drums containing automotive fluids and oils associated with the Tire and Lube Express wereobserved in the “pit” located beneath the western portion of the Tire and Lube Express structure.

A drum containing aerosol cans was observed in the warehouse portion of the store near the janitorcloset. The drum was stored in a secondary containment area used for the storage of miscellaneouscontainers of chemicals, such as from spills that occurred in the store , or opened items returned bycustomers.

Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

Not including storage tanks or drums, the following hazardous substances or petroleum products were

also observed during the site reconnaissance:

Several containers of potentially hazardous substances and chemicals were observed in a secondarycontainment area located in the warehouse portion of the project site. The containers were used forthe storage of miscellaneous containers of chemicals and potentially hazardous materials from spillsthat occurred in the store, or opened items returned by customers. The items stored includedcontainers of gasoline stored in a fire-proof cabinet, pool chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, propanecanisters, camping fuel and lamp oil.

The storage of paint containers was observed in the warehouse portion of the project site.

Cleaning supplies were observed in the janitor closet in the warehouse portion of the project site.

Retail store items, including household cleaning substances, automotive items, gardening chemicals(pesticides and fertilizers) were observed throughout the Walmart store.

Unidentified Substance Containers

Unidentified substance containers or unidentified containers that might contain hazardous substances

were not observed during the site reconnaissance.



Odors

During the site reconnaissance, no strong, pungent, or noxious odors were identified.

Pools of Liquid

During the site reconnaissance, no pools of liquid, including standing surface water, were identified.

Sumps and Clarifiers

During the site reconnaissance, a below-grade oil/water separator was observed in the Tire and Lube

Express. The pit area is frequently washed down and the resultant oil/water mixture is separated by the

oil/water separator.

Indications of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

During site reconnaissance, a pad-mounted transformer was observed on the northern portion of the site

adjacent to the central portion of the structure. Staining was not observed in the vicinity of the

transformer.

In addition, a hydraulic trash compactor was observed on the northern portion of the property adjacent

to the northeastern corner of the building. Staining was not observed in the vicinity of the trash

compactor.

Other Conditions of Concern

During the site reconnaissance, none of the following interior or exterior conditions were observed:

corrosion

ponds and lagoons

stained soil

stressed vegetation

debris/fill material

wells

septic systems

Heating/Cooling – Heating/cooling systems are located on the roof of the Walmart store.



Drains – Several drains were observed in the interior of the Walmart structure. The drains in the Tire and

Lube Express pit drain to the oil/water separator. The drains in the warehouse portion of the store lead to

the sewer system. Storm drains were observed in several portions of the paved parking and driveway

areas.

Stains – Oily staining of the floor of the Tire and Lube Express pit area was observed during the site

reconnaissance.

Waste Water – As previously stated, oily water is washed into an on-site oil/water separator.

Solid Waste – During the site reconnaissance, used automotive tires were observed in a storage area

located outside (to the south) of the Tire and Lube Express. In addition, as previously stated, a trash

compactor was observed on the northern portion of the site.

PROJECT IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts relative to hazards and hazardous

materials are contained in the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent

update of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Impacts relative to hazards and

hazardous materials are considered significant if the Project would:

create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, ordisposal of hazardous materials;

create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upsetand accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;

emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastewithin 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;

be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment;

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, result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area;

for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area;



impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan; or

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 withwildlands (issue is addressed within Appendix 1.0).

Impact Analysis

Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials

The existing Walmart sells and stores materials considered to be hazardous such as paint and paint

thinners, bleaches, household cleaning substances, pesticides, fertilizers, pool chemicals, and automotive

materials such as new and used oil, batteries, and tires. The expansion of the Walmart store could

increase the use and sale of these materials on site due to an increase in available floor space.

Additionally, during the site reconnaissance, the storage of containers of spilled chemicals, propane tanks

and gasoline canisters was observed in a portion of the warehouse area of the Walmart store. The storage

containers appeared to be properly stored, sealed, and labeled and were located within appropriate

secondary containments. In addition, during the site reconnaissance, the use and storage of petroleum

products in association with the Tire and Lube Express automotive service shop located on the

northwestern portion of the site was observed. Several aboveground tanks of waste oil and unused motor

oil, several 55-gallon drums of automotive lubricants, battery storage, tire storage, and the presence of an

underground oil/water separator were observed.

A variety of state and federal laws govern the transport, generation, treating, or disposal of hazardous

wastes. The City of Lompoc and Santa Barbara County have the authority to inspect on-site uses and to

enforce state and federal laws governing the storage, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials

and wastes. In addition, the City of Lompoc and Santa Barbara County currently require that an annual

inventory of hazardous materials in use on site and a business emergency plan be submitted for an

annual review, as required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Chapter 6.95 of the

California Health and Safety Code requires any business handling or storing in excess of 55 gallons or

500 pounds of a solid or liquid hazardous material or 200 cubic feet of gas to submit hazardous materials

management business plans (HMBPs). HMBPs are to provide emergency responders with emergency

contact information, site-specific chemical inventories, and maps of the vicinity and facility. Facilities

storing materials that are “acutely” hazardous and in excess of the quantities in CCR Title 19 must

submit a more comprehensive risk management plan, which includes off-site consequences analysis,

maintenance, training programs, and an executive summary. These requirements, which would be

mandated per state and federal law, are already complied with by Walmart for the existing store and



would continue to be complied with after Project implementation. Given the type and quantity of

potentially hazardous materials at the site, coupled with California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6-95

compliance, impacts are considered to be less than significant with the implementation of the project.

Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions

Based on the Phase I ESA, known or suspect environmental conditions associated with the project site

include the following: the former agricultural use of the site, the former presence of a waste oil UST on

the site; the operation of the automotive Tire and Lube Express on the site; and the presence of an

oil/water separator within the Tire and Lube Express on the site.

Prior to the construction of the Walmart structure, it appears that some agricultural use of the site

occurred between about 1938 and 1989. The former agricultural use of the site is a suspect environmental

condition. Nonetheless, since the site was likely graded prior to the construction of the Walmart store and

the majority of the site has been paved over, any residual pesticides are considered a de minimis

condition, thus not warranting further investigation. A de minimis condition generally does not present a

material risk of harm to public health or the environment and generally would not be the subject of an

enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Consequently,

potential impacts associated with agricultural uses are considered to be less than significant.

The presence of the former waste oil UST at the site is also considered a de minimis condition for several

reasons. First, the tank was removed from the project site in 1999. Second, upon removal of the tanks, the

six-year-old, double-wall, fiberglass UST was intact and cracks or breaches in the tank were not noted.

Third, there was no staining of the soil beneath the removed UST and laboratory analytical results of the

soil samples collected below the tank and associated product piping indicated that petroleum

hydrocarbons, BTEX, and VOCs were not present. Lastly, closure for the former UST at the project site

was granted by the SBCFPD. Consequently, potential impacts associated with the former UST are

considered to be less than significant.

The existing project site contains a Tire and Lube Express facility on the northwest portion of the project

site. This facility contains several aboveground tanks of waste oil and unused motor oil, several 55-gallon

drums of automotive lubricants, battery storage, tire storage, and the presence of an underground

oil/water separator. Oil staining on the floor of the Tire and Lube Express pit area was observed during

the preparation of the Phase I ESA (see Appendix 4.6). The Phase I ESA indicated that if redevelopment

of the site is proposed, the contractor should be made aware of the possible presence of hydrocarbon-

impacted soil beneath the site and that petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil, if encountered, should be



removed.6 The proposed project would eliminate the Tire and Lube Express, and there is a possibility

that undetected soil contamination could be present within this area. In addition, there is also the

potential that undocumented contamination could be within any of the other project development areas.

Consequently, impacts are considered to be potentially significant.

Hazardous Conditions Within 0.25 Mile of an Existing or Proposed School

There is one school, Olive Grove Charter School, located approximately 750 feet to the southeast of the

project site. On-site hazardous material and chemicals are stored in accordance with accepted practices.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of the project.

Hazardous Materials Sites – Government Code Section 65962.5

The project site is located within a retail shopping center. The proposed project would expand the

existing building by 41,433 net square feet. The proposed project is not located on a site that is included

on a list of hazardous materials sites, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).7 No

impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

Safety Hazard Public Airport or Public Use Airport

The existing Walmart store is located approximately 325 feet south of the Lompoc Airport, which is used

as a private and commercial airport. The project site is located within the Santa Barbara County Airport

Land Use Plan for the Lompoc Airport.8 The proposed project would expand to the north and west side

of the existing building, adding approximately 41,433 new net square feet. This addition would remain at

the current height of the existing building and would not impact the Lompoc Airport. The aeronautical

study issued on August 25, 2009, by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is contained in

Appendix 4.6, revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a

hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is (are) met: “Based on this

evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or

lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, the FAA recommend it be installed and maintained in

accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2.” No aircraft safety hazard impacts would

occur with the implementation of the project. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to

heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.

6 Rincon Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Wal-Mart Store No. 1989, 701 West Central Avenue,Lompoc, California, (July 11, 2008).

7 Rincon Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Wal-Mart Store No. 1989, 701 West Central Avenue,Lompoc, California, (July 11, 2008).

8 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Plan, (1993).



To assess impacts to military aircraft from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the project area, a California

military land use compatibility analysis report was generated.9 The report concluded that the project sitedoes not intersect with any military bases, special use airspaces, or low-level flight paths. Therefore,

impacts on the safety of workers and people would be less than significant for the proposed project.

Safety Hazard Due to Private Airstrip

The project site is not located near a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project

would not result in any safety hazards relative to private airstrips. No impact would occur with the

implementation of the project.

Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan

Currently, the City emergency evacuation routes are provided on State Route 246 (SR-246) and State

Route 1 (SR-1), which, in the event of an emergency, would evacuate the City west towards the Pacific

Ocean and Vandenberg Air Force Base, and east and south towards State Route 101, which travels north

and south through the state. These routes are main thoroughfares that may be used by emergency

response services during an emergency and, if the situation warrants, the evacuation of the area. The

project site is located approximately 0.4 mile to the west of SR-1. Implementation of the project would

neither result in a reduction of the number of lanes along these roadway segments in the area nor result

in the placement of an impediment to the flow of traffic such as medians. In the event of an emergency,

all lanes would be opened to allow traffic to flow in one direction; traffic would be controlled by

appropriate agencies, such as the Lompoc Police Department. During the construction activities, the

project would not include short-term single-lane closures along these routes. No impact would occur

with the implementation of the project.

Wildland Fires

The project site is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by residential and commercial uses. There

are no wildlands adjacent to the site and the project site is designated as a low-hazard area for wildland

fires in the General Plan.10 No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials was assessed

based upon consideration of the project and cumulative projects in the City of Lompoc. These cumulative

projects are identified in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

9 EDA Design Professionals, Development Plan – Design Review planning application, (December 2008).10 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Safety Element,” Wildland Fire Hazard Areas Map, (1997).



Cumulative projects would result in an incremental increase in the amount of hazardous materials

transported, used, treated, stored, and disposed areawide. Although each development site haspotentially unique hazardous materials considerations, all hazardous materials delivered and hazardous

waste removed from the project site and each cumulative project site would be in accordance with Title

24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, cumulative projects (if applicable) would be required

to prepare an annual inventory of hazardous materials used on site and submit a business emergency

plan to the City for an annual review, as required by Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act (and

Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code). Impacts associated with cumulative projects

would be less than significant. Walmart already prepares an annual inventory and business emergency

plan and would continue to do so after the implementation of the project. Consequently, project impacts

would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.

It is possible that a number of the cumulative projects could expose construction workers and other

persons to contaminated soil or groundwater. Future development would adhere to applicable federal,

state, or local laws, and regulations that govern underground storage tanks, as well as the disposal and

cleanup of contaminants. Mitigation has been included for the project that would reduce any impact

associated with upset or accident conditions, and, therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively

significant.

Cumulative projects may be located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous material sites

compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Development of these cumulative projects

would comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes, and risks from

identified hazardous material sites would be eliminated or reduced through proper handling, disposal

practice, and/or clean-up procedures. Accordingly, cumulative impacts to the public or environment

associated with development on or near listed contaminated sites would be less than significant. No

hazardous material sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) are located on the

project site. Consequently, project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less

than significant.

Cumulative projects may be located on or near the Lompoc Airport and Vandenberg Air Force Base and

within or near aircraft flight areas. Development of these cumulative projects would comply with

applicable FAA laws and regulations pertaining to development within flight zones. Accordingly,

impacts to the airports associated with cumulative development would be less than significant. The

project has been determined to not affect flight patterns or result in obstruction of flight patterns to either

the Lompoc Airport or Vandenberg Air Force Base. Consequently, project impacts would not be

cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.



Construction and development associated with cumulative projects could result in activities that interfere

with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, primarily by temporary construction barricadesor other obstructions that could impede access. Future development would go through CEQA review of

potential impacts on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, and would be required to

implement measures to mitigate potential impacts. Consequently, cumulative impacts would be less than

significant. Additionally, the project’s construction impacts on emergency response or evacuation plan

implementation due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede an

adopted emergency access response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be mitigated.

Consequently, the project’s contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and


MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the project’s potentially significant impacts to


MM 4-6-1 While not known to occur on site, if contaminated soil and/or groundwater is

encountered during the removal of on-site debris or during excavation and/or grading

both on and off site, the construction contractors shall stop work and immediately inform

the City of Lompoc. An environmental hazardous materials professional shall be

contracted to conduct an on-site assessment. If the materials are determined to pose a

risk to the public or construction workers, the construction contractor shall prepare and

submit a remediation plan to the appropriate agency and comply with all federal, state,

and local laws. Soil remediation methods could include excavation and on-site treatment,

excavation and off-site treatment or disposal, and/or treatment without excavation.

Remediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater could include in-situ

treatment, extraction and on-site treatment, or extraction and off-site treatment and/or

disposal. Construction plans shall be modified or postponed to ensure construction will

not inhibit remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers

to hazardous conditions.

MM 4-6-2 All residual hazardous materials and contaminated construction material removed prior

to and during demolition of the Tire and Lube Express shall be properly disposed of

according to state and federal law.




5.0 ALTERNATIVES

PURPOSE

This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) provides a comparative analysis of the merits of

alternatives to the proposed project in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives in an

EIR should focus on alternatives to a project, or its location that can avoid or substantially lessen the

significant effects of the project. The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives included

in this discussion should be sufficient to allow decision makers a reasoned choice. The alternatives

discussion should provide decision makers with sufficient information for meaningful evaluation,

analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.

INTRODUCTION

The State CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR needs to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a

project, or the location of a project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project

while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the project. When addressing

feasibility, the State CEQA Guidelines state, “among the factors that may be taken into account when

addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of

infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries,

and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative

site.” The State CEQA Guidelines also state that the alternatives discussion should not be remote or

speculative, and need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed

project.

Therefore, based on the State CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the

range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of detail of analysis that should be provided

for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project;

(2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project; (3) the

ability of the alternatives to meet the basic objectives of the project; and (4) the feasibility of the

alternatives.

The following project objectives have been identified for the Walmart Expansion Project:



5.0 Alternatives


Provide a significant tax revenue generator with the flexibility to adapt its existing store to meetmarket demands through expansion in lieu of new ground-up construction.



Create a pleasant and attractive shopping experience for City residents.


Provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the City of Lompoc’s standards in order to ensure thatadequate on-site parking is provided for store customers and employees.

Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR concludes that project implementation would

not result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. All impacts could be reduced to less

than significant levels through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR.

The City of Lompoc, as the lead agency, considered several alternatives to determine if they would lessen

the impacts associated with the proposed project. The alternatives examined within the EIR include the

No Project Alternative and three reduced-expansion alternatives.

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR EVALUATION

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative

Description

The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to be evaluated by Section 15126.6 (2) of the State

CEQA Guidelines . The analysis must examine the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present

condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project

were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community

services.

Environmental Analysis

Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the project site would not be expanded with additional

square feet for the existing store or include a grocery component; it would remain in its current state.

None of the impacts associated with construction and operational activities would occur if the No

Project/No Build Alternative were selected. For instance, no additional vehicle trips would be generated

5.0 Alternatives


over present conditions, nor would noise and air quality impacts occur with selection of this alternative.

The use of electricity and natural gas and any energy conservation measures would continue under

current conditions. In addition, this alternative would not contribute to potential urban decay in the City.

This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project in all respects.

Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives

The following objectives would not be met by this alternative:







Alternative 2: 30,000-Square-Foot Expansion with No Grocery

The alternative would include the development of the project at a reduction of 11,433 square feet. Under

this alternative, the project would include the development of 30,000 square feet of space consisting of

general merchandise sales area, a stockroom/receiving area, an ancillary area, and an outdoor garden

center. The grocery sales area and grocery storage and ancillary areas would not be developed.



Air Quality

Construction emissions and fugitive dust associated with this alternative on a daily basis would be

slightly less than levels described for the project. This is due to the fact that the development would be

smaller than under the proposed project and would require less grading activities. Neither this

alternative nor the proposed project would result in construction-generated emissions that exceed Santa

5.0 Alternatives


Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) thresholds. Nonetheless, this alternative would

generate fewer emissions than the proposed project.

This alternative would result in a reduction in the size of the Walmart building square-footage area and

employment numbers. This reduction in the size of the project would also result in a corresponding

reduction in vehicular trips moving to and from the project site and thus reduced operational emissions.

Furthermore, the reduction in the size of the project would result in a corresponding reduction in

stationary emissions. This alternative would produce 67 percent of the mobile emissions1 and 75 percent

of the stationary emissions2 of the proposed project. Emissions associated with this alternative are

presented in Table 5.0-1, Estimated Worst-Case Alternative 2 – Operational Emissions.

Table 5.0-1Estimated Worst-Case Alternative 2 – Operational Emissions


Summertime (Smog Season) Net Emissions



Subtotal 9.26 13.02 109.08 0.067 13.34 2.57

Wintertime (Non-Smog Season) Net Emissions



Subtotal 10.35 15.18 113.86 0.67 13.33 2.56

SBCAPCD Threshold 240 240 — — 80 —

Mobile Source Threshold 25 25 — — — —

Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., (2009). See Table 4.1-9 for comparable operational emissions for the proposed project.

1 Divide weekday/weekend trips (1,594/1,922) produced by the alternative with the weekend/weekday trips(2,391/2,883) produced by the proposed project to determine ratio (0.67) which would be 67 percent.

2 Divide square feet expansion (30,000) proposed by alternative with the proposed square feet expansion of theproposed project (41,433) to determine ratio (0.72) or 72 percent of the proposed project. This analysis wasrounded up to 75 percent of the proposed project to be conservative.

5.0 Alternatives


As presented, this alternative, like the proposed project, would result in operation-generated emissions

that would not exceed SBAPCD thresholds. Additionally, with mitigation, neither this alternative nor the

proposed project would result in significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with this alternative would be slightly less than described

for the project on a daily basis. This is due to the fact that the project would be smaller under this

alternative than under the proposed project and, thus, would require less construction activities, natural

gas consumption, electricity generation, and water consumption. Neither this alternative nor the

proposed project will interfere with the state’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the

year 2020, as stated, and an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.

Nonetheless, this alternative would generate fewer GHG emissions than the proposed project.

Noise

Noise impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the impacts identified for the proposed

project. Construction noise levels would be generated by construction equipment at similar distances to

the existing residences to the south and southwest of the site. While the construction time frame required

to complete this alternative may be slightly shorter, impacts would be similar to the proposed project.

This alternative would generate 797 fewer average weekday daily trips and generate 961 fewer average

weekend daily trips from the project site, thus roadway noise impacts would be slightly reduced when

compared to those identified for the proposed project. However, neither this alternative nor the proposed

project would result in significant roadway noise level increases on either a project- or cumulative-level.


Under this alternative, trip generation from the site would be less than under the proposed project. The

traffic and circulation study prepared for the proposed project identified the number of vehicular trips

that would be generated based on figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip

Generation Manual (Eighth Edition). Based on figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the

assumption that the project site would be developed with a maximum of 30,000 square feet, this

alternative would generate a total of 1,594 daily weekday trips and 1,922 weekend trips. As was

identified in Section 4.3, Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project would generate

2,391 weekday daily trips and 2,883 weekend trips. The development of the site with Alternative 2 would

generate approximately 797 fewer weekday trips and 961 fewer weekend trips than the proposed project.

The proposed project did not result in any project-level traffic impacts. Additionally, with mitigation, the

proposed project did not result in any cumulative-level traffic impacts. Therefore, neither this alternative

nor the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts.

5.0 Alternatives


Urban Decay

Under this alternative there would be less retail square footage and no grocery component associated

with development of the Walmart store. The Lompoc retail trade area (LRTA) includes general

merchandise, apparel, furniture, and other/specialty (GAFO) sales categories and grocery categories. The

LRTA potential net demand for new GAFO space is projected to grow. The proposed project would

account for approximately 23 percent of this growth. The alternative would account for approximately 16

percent of the LRTA growth for new GAFO space.3 Therefore, this alternative would have a smaller

potential to retain sales within the LRTA, and would result in smaller potential for economic benefits

within the LRTA than the proposed project. However, both would potentially increase retail sales within

the LRTA and would have positive economic impacts to GAFO sales.

This alternative would not include a grocery component. The urban decay study prepared for the

proposed project identified that there is the potential for a grocery store to close down within the LRTA;

however, this would not cause urban decay, as there is potential for reuse of the vacant building for other

(non-grocery) retail categories. Additionally, a building vacancy does not indicate urban decay. There are

no visible indications of urban decay (e.g., boarded-up windows, graffiti, etc.). The downtown area is

well maintained with almost no litter or graffiti. Landscaping and street furniture further provide a sense

of community, without any of the physical manifestations of urban decay.

Although a potential vacancy would be undesirable from the standpoint of commercial property owners,

it is not likely to result in urban decay. Urban decay is a potential consequence of a downward spiral of

store closures and long-term vacancies when property owners reduce property maintenance activities

below that required to keep their properties in good condition. Property-owners are likely to make

reductions in maintenance under conditions where they see little likelihood of future positive returns.

While the closure of a business is an impact to the owners and employees of that business, within the

context of CEQA it is only significant if it results in sustained vacancies which in turn results in

deterioration of the physical condition of the vacant building(s). The recent successful experience of

re-tenanting vacant supermarket and big box retail store spaces in the area demonstrates that a closed

supermarket is unlikely to be subject to extended vacancy. Under these circumstances, the property

owners would have a strong economic incentive to maintain the buildings in a condition suitable for

re-tenanting. Therefore, urban decay is not considered a foreseeable impact.

3 Based on the reduction in square footage of the proposed project, this alternative would reduce GAFO space byapproximately 25 percent. Therefore, this alternative would account for 16 percent of future GAFO growth in theLRTA (9,312 × 0.75 = 6,705; 6,705/41,900 = 0.16 or 16 percent).

5.0 Alternatives


The proposed project did not result in any project- or cumulative-level urban decay impacts, as none of

the physical manifestations of urban decay are present or foreseeable. However, as this alternative would

not construct a grocery store component, there would be no reasonable likelihood of related grocery store

closures as a result of its implementation, which would further reduce the possibility of urban decay in

the future. Therefore, potential for urban decay related impacts of this alternative would be less than the

proposed project.


Under this alternative, the use of electricity and natural gas would be less. This alternative would use the

same project design features and sustainability features as those identified for the proposed project. As

seen below in Table 5.0-2, Electricity Consumption, Alternative 2 would require 399,953 kilowatt hours

per year (kWH/yr) (or a consumption rate of 0.046 megawatts per hour), which is 161,465 kWH/yr less

than the proposed project.

Table 5.0-2Electricity Consumption

ElectricityProposed Project Alternative 2

Land UseConsumption Rate1

(kWH/sf/yr) Size (sf)Subtotal(kWH/yr) Size (sf)

Subtotal(kWH/yr)

WalmartExpansion

13.55 41,621 563,965 30,000 402,500


N/A2 (3,383) -- (3,383) --

MinorDemolition(reduction)

13.55 (188) (2,547) (188) (2,547)

Subtotal 561,418 399,953

Difference Between Proposed Project and Alternative 2 (161,465)

sf = square feetkWH = kilowatt hoursyr = yearsIn the absence of consumption rates for the City of Lompoc, representative consumption rates were taken from the South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD).1 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, Table A9-11-A, Electricity Usage Rate.2 No consumption rate is listed for this use within the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, the consumption is expected to

be minimal and negligible.

5.0 Alternatives


As seen below in Table 5.0-3, Natural Gas Consumption, Alternative 2 would require 86,455 cubic feet

per month, which is 33,701 cubic feet per month less than the proposed project.4

The proposed project did not result in any project- or cumulative-level energy, electricity and/or natural

gas impacts; therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed project would result in significant

impacts.


This alternative, like the proposed project, would result in an incremental increase in the amount of

hazardous materials transported, used, treated, stored, and disposed areawide. This alternative would

also be required to prepare an annual inventory of hazardous materials used on site and submit a

business emergency plan to the City for an annual review, as required by the Emergency Planning and

Right-to-Know Act and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Walmart already prepares

an annual inventory and business emergency plan and would continue to do so after the implementation

of either this alternative or the proposed project. Consequently, impacts from this alternative, like the

proposed project, would be less than significant.

It is possible that this alternative or the proposed project could expose construction workers and other

persons to contaminated soil or groundwater. Future development under either this alternative or the

proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, or local laws, and regulations that govern

underground storage tanks, as well as the disposal and clean up of contaminants. Mitigation has been

included for the project, which would also be required under this alternative, that would reduce any

impact associated with upset or accident conditions to less than significant.

Development of this alternative, like the proposed project, would comply with applicable Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) laws and regulations pertaining to development within flight zones. This

alternative, like the proposed project, would not affect flight patterns or result in obstruction of flight

patterns to either the Lompoc Airport or Vandenberg Air Force Base. Consequently, impacts from this

alternative, like the proposed project, would be less than significant.


Of the project objectives that have been identified for the Walmart Expansion Project, the following

would either not be met or be partially met with the implementation of Alternative 2:


4 Assumed 30 days in a month.

5.0 Alternatives



Provide a significant tax revenue generator the flexibility to adapt its existing store to meet marketdemands through expansion in lieu of new ground-up construction.

Table 5.0-3Natural Gas Consumption

Natural GasProposed Project Alternative 2


(cf/sf/mo) Size (sf)Subtotal(cf/mo) Size (sf)

Subtotal(cf/mo)

WalmartExpansion

2.9 41,621 120,701 30,000 87,000


N/A2 (3,383) -- (3,383) --


2.9 (188) (545) (188) (545)

Subtotal 120,156 86,455


sf = square feetcf = cubic footmo = month (assumed to be 30 days)In the absence of consumption rates for the City of Lompoc, representative consumption rates were taken from the South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD).1 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, Table A9-12-A, Natural Gas Usage Rate.2 No consumption rate is listed for this use within the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, the consumption is expected to


Alternative 3: 20,000-square-foot Expansion, No Grocery, and Tire & Lube Express


this alternative, the project would include the development of 20,000 square feet of space consisting of

general merchandise sales area, a stockroom/receiving area, an ancillary area, an outdoor garden center,

and the Tire & Lube Express. The grocery sales area and grocery storage and ancillary areas would not be

developed. Development of this alternative would occur on the same 12.03-acre site as the proposed

project.

5.0 Alternatives



Air Quality

Construction emissions and fugitive dust associated with this alternative would be slightly less than

described for the project on a daily basis. This is due to the fact that the development site would be

smaller under this alternative than under the proposed project and, thus, would require less grading

activities. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would result in construction-generated

emissions that exceed SBAPCD thresholds. Nonetheless, this alternative would generate fewer emissions


This alternative would result in a reduction in the size of the expansion of the Walmart building, of which

there would be no grocery related uses, and the continued use of the Tire & Lube Express. This reduction

in the size of the project would also result in a corresponding reduction in vehicular trips moving to and

from the project site and, thus, reduced operational emissions. Furthermore, the reduction in the size of

the project would result in a corresponding reduction in stationary emissions. This alternative would

produce 45 percent of the mobile emissions5 and 50 percent of the stationary emissions6 of the proposed

project. Emissions associated with this alternative are presented in Table 5.0-4, Estimated Worst-Case

Alternative 3 – Operational Emissions.

As presented, this alternative, as with proposed project, would result in operation-generated emissions



GHG emissions associated with this alternative would be slightly less than described for the project on a

daily basis. This is due to the fact that the project would be smaller under this alternative than under the

proposed project and, thus, would require less construction activities, natural gas consumption,

electricity generation, and water consumption. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would

interfere with the state’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, as stated, and

an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. Nonetheless, this alternative would

generate fewer GHG emissions than the proposed project.

5 Divide weekday/weekend trips (1,063/1,281) produced by the alternative with the weekend/weekday trips(2,391/2,883) produced by the proposed project to determine ratio (0.44) or, for a conservative analysis,45 percent.

6 Divide square feet expansion (20,000) proposed by alternative with the proposed square feet expansion of theproposed project (41,433) to determine ratio (0.48) or 50 percent of the proposed project. This analysis wasrounded up to 50 percent of the proposed project to determine a conservative analysis.

5.0 Alternatives







Subtotal 6.22 8.74 73.26 0.05 8.96 1.73




Subtotal 6.95 10.19 76.47 0.05 8.95 1.72





Noise




to complete this alternative may be slightly shorter, it would still result in a less than significant impact

related to construction noise.

Operational noise from high rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), loading and

unloading operations, and the parking lot were all found to be below the City thresholds for noise at

residential land uses. This alternative would operate with a smaller development footprint and thus

generate less noise then the proposed project. This alternative would also generate 1,328 fewer weekday

average daily trips and 1,602 fewer weekend average daily trips from the project site; thus, roadway noise

impacts would be reduced when compared to those identified for the proposed project. However, neither

this alternative nor the proposed project would result in significant roadway noise level increases, at

either the project or cumulative level.

5.0 Alternatives



Under this alternative, trip generation from the site would be less than the proposed project. The traffic

and circulation study prepared for the proposed project identified the number of vehicular trips that

would be generated based on figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Eighth Edition). Based on

these figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the assumption that the project site would be

developed with a maximum of 20,000 square feet, this alternative would generate a total of 1,063 daily

weekday trips and 1,281 weekend trips. As was identified in Section 4.3, Transportation and

Circulation, the proposed project would generate 2,391 daily weekday trips and 2,883 weekend trips. The

development of the site with Alternative 3 would generate approximately 1,328 fewer weekday trips and

1,602 fewer weekend trips than the proposed project.




Urban Decay

Under this alternative there would be less retail square footage, continued operation of the Tire & Lube

Express, and no grocery component associated with development of the Walmart store. As discussed in

Section 4.4 of this EIR, the expanded Walmart in the proposed project would account for approximately

23 percent of GAFO growth in the LRTA. This reduced alternative would account for approximately

11 percent of the LRTA growth for new GAFO space.7 Therefore, this alternative would have a smaller

potential to retain sales within the LRTA, and would potentially result in smaller economic benefits than

the proposed project. However, both would potentially increase retail sales within the LRTA and would

have positive economic impacts to GAFO sales.

This alternative would not include a grocery component. The urban decay study prepared for the

proposed project identified the potential for a grocery store to close down within the LRTA: however,

this would not cause urban decay, as there is potential for reuse of the vacant building for other

(non-grocery) retail categories. Additionally, a building vacancy does not indicate urban decay. There are

no visible indications of urban decay (e.g., boarded-up windows, graffiti, etc.). The downtown area is

well maintained with almost no litter or graffiti. Landscaping and street furniture further provide a sense

of community, without any of the physical manifestations of urban decay.

7 Based on the reduction in square footage of the proposed project, this alternative would reduce GAFO space byapproximately 50 percent. Therefore, this alternative would account for 11 percent of future GAFO growth in theLRTA (9,312 × 0.50 = 4,656; 4,656/41,900 = 0.11 or 11 percent).

5.0 Alternatives








context of CEQA it is only significant if it results in sustained vacancies which in turn results in

deterioration of the physical condition of the vacant building(s). The recent successful experience of

re-tenanting vacant supermarket and big box retail store spaces in the area demonstrates that a closed

supermarket is unlikely to be subject to extended vacancy. Under these circumstances, the property

owners would have a strong economic incentive to maintain the buildings in a condition suitable for

re-tenanting. Therefore, urban decay is not considered a foreseeable impact.



not construct a grocery store component, there would be no reasonable likelihood of related grocery store

closures as a result of its implementation, which would further reduce the possibility of urban decay in

the future. Therefore, potential for urban decay related impacts of this Alternative would be less than the

proposed project.




seen below in Table 5.0-5, Electricity Consumption, Alternative 3 would require 268,453 kWH/yr (or a

consumption rate of 0.031 megawatts), which is 292,965 kWH/yr less than the proposed project.

As seen in Table 5.0-6, Natural Gas Consumption, Alternative 3 would require 57,455 cubic feet per

month, which is 62,701 cubic feet per month less than the proposed project.8



impacts.


5.0 Alternatives






Subtotal(kWH/yr)

WalmartExpansion

13.55 41,621 563,965 20,000 271,000


N/A2 (3,383) -- (3,383) --


13.55 (188) (2,547) (188) (2,547)

Subtotal 561,418 268,453Difference Between Proposed Project and Alternative 3 (292,965)





hazardous materials transported, used, treated, stored, and disposed areawide. This alternative would

also be required to prepare an annual inventory of hazardous materials used on site and submit a

business emergency plan to the City for an annual review, as required by the Emergency Planning and

Right-to-Know Act and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Walmart already prepares

an annual inventory and business emergency plan and would continue to do so after the implementation

of either this alternative or the proposed project. Consequently, impacts from this alternative, like the





underground storage tanks, as well as the disposal and cleanup of contaminants. Mitigation has been



5.0 Alternatives


Development of this alternative, like the proposed project, would comply with applicable FAA laws and

regulations pertaining to development within flight zones. This alternative, like the proposed project,

would not affect flight patterns or result in obstruction of flight patterns to either the Lompoc Airport or

Vandenberg AFB. Consequently, impacts from this alternative, like the proposed project, would be less

than significant.



would either not be met or be partially met with the implementation of Alternative 3.








Subtotal(cf/mo)

WalmartExpansion

2.9 41,621 120,701 20,000 58,000


N/A2 (3,383) -- (3,383) --


2.9 (188) (545) (188) (545)

Subtotal 120,156 57,455




5.0 Alternatives


Alternative 4: 10,000-Square-Foot Expansion with only Grocery


this alternative, the project would include the development of 10,000 square feet of space consisting of a

grocery sales area, a grocery storage area, and ancillary grocery uses. The general merchandise sales area,

stockroom and receiving area, the ancillary area, and the outdoor garden center would not be developed.



Air Quality

Construction emissions and fugitive dust associated with this alternative would be slightly less than

described for the project on a daily basis. This is due to the fact that the development site would be

smaller under this alternative than under the proposed project and, thus, would require less grading

activities. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project would result in construction-generated

emissions that exceed SBAPCD thresholds. Nonetheless, this alternative would generate fewer emissions


This alternative would result in a reduction in the size of the expansion of the Walmart store and would

include only grocery uses. This reduction in the size of the project would also result in a corresponding

reduction in vehicular trips moving to and from the project site and, thus, reduced operational emissions.

Furthermore, the reduction in the size of the project would result in a corresponding reduction in

stationary emissions. This alternative would produce 25 percent of the mobile emissions9 and 25 percent

of the stationary emissions10 of the proposed project. Emissions associated with this alternative are

presented in Table 5.0-7, Estimated Worst-Case Alternative 4 – Operational Emissions.

As presented, this alternative, like the proposed project, would result in operation-generated emissions



9 Divide weekday/weekend trips (531/641) produced by the alternative with the weekend/weekday trips(2,391/2,883) produced by the proposed project to determine ratio (0.22) or, for a conservative analysis,25 percent.

10 Divide square feet expansion (10,000) proposed by alternative with the proposed square feet expansion of theproposed project (41,433) to determine ratio (0.24) or 25 percent of the proposed project.

5.0 Alternatives







Subtotal 3.44 4.85 40.65 0.03 4.97 0.96




Subtotal 3.85 5.65 42.47 0.03 4.97 0.96





GHG emissions associated with this alternative would be slightly less than described for the project on a

daily basis. This is due to the fact that the project would be smaller under this alternative than under the

proposed project and, thus, would require less construction activities, natural gas consumption,

electricity generation, and less water consumption. Neither this alternative nor the proposed project

would interfere with the state’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, as

stated, and an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. Nonetheless, this

alternative would generate fewer GHG emissions than the proposed project.

Noise




to complete this alternative may be slightly shorter, construction noise impacts would be similar to the

proposed project.

This alternative would generate 1,860 fewer average weekday daily trips and generate 2,224 fewer

average weekend daily trips from the project site, thus roadway noise impacts would be slightly reduced

when compared to those identified for the proposed project. However, neither this alternative nor the

5.0 Alternatives


proposed project would result in significant roadway noise level increases, at either the project- or

cumulative-level.


Under this alternative, trip generation from the site would be less than the proposed project. The traffic

and circulation study prepared for the proposed project identified the number of vehicular trips that

would be generated based on figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Eighth Edition). Based on

these figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the assumption that the project site would be

developed with a maximum 10,000 square feet, this alternative would generate a total of 531 weekday

daily trips and 641 weekend daily trips. As was identified in Section 4.3, Transportation and

Circulation, the proposed project would generate 2,391 daily weekday trips and 2,883 daily weekend

trips. The development of the site with Alternative 4 would generate approximately 1,860 fewer weekday

trips and 2,224 fewer weekend trips than the proposed project.




Urban Decay

This alternative would include development of a grocery component within the Walmart building. The

urban decay study prepared for the proposed project identified that, upon operation, there is the

potential for a grocery store closure within the LRTA; however, this would not result in potential urban

decay as there would be the potential for reuse of the building for other (non-grocery) retail categories.

Additionally, a building vacancy does not indicate urban decay. There are no visible indications of urban

decay (e.g., boarded-up windows, graffiti, etc.). The downtown area is well maintained with almost no

litter or graffiti. Landscaping and street furniture further provide a sense of community, without any of

the physical manifestations of urban decay.







context of CEQA it is only significant if it results in sustained vacancies that in turn result in deterioration

of the physical condition of the vacant building(s). The recent successful experience of re-tenanting vacant

5.0 Alternatives


supermarket and big box retail store spaces in the area demonstrates that a closed supermarket is unlikely

to be subject to extended vacancy. Under these circumstances, the property owners would have a strong

economic incentive to maintain the buildings in a condition suitable for re-tenanting. Therefore, urban

decay is not considered a foreseeable impact.



construct a smaller grocery store component than would the proposed Project, there would be less

likelihood of related grocery store closures as a result of its implementation, which would further reduce

the possibility of urban decay in the future. Therefore, potential for urban decay related impacts of this

Alternative would be less than the proposed project.




seen below in Table 5.0-8, Electricity Consumption, Alternative 4 would require 132,953 kWH/yr (or a

consumption rate of 0.015 megawatts), which is 428,465 kWH/yr less demand than the proposed project.





Subtotal(kWH/yr)

Walmart Expansion 13.55 41,621 563,965 10,000 135,500

Outdoor GardenCenter (reduction)

N/A2 (3,383) -- (3,383) --

Minor Demolition(reduction)

13.55 (188) (2,547) (188) (2,547)

Subtotal 561,418 132,953

Difference Between the Proposed Project and Alternative 4 (428,465)



5.0 Alternatives


As seen below in Table 5.0-9, Natural Gas Consumption, Alternative 4 would require 28,455 cubic feet

per month, which is 91,701 cubic feet per month less than the proposed project.11



impacts.



hazardous materials transported, used, treated, stored, and disposed areawide. This alternative would be

required to prepare an annual inventory of hazardous materials used on site and submit a business

emergency plan to the City for an annual review, as required by the Emergency Planning and Right-to-

Know Act and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Walmart already prepares an

annual inventory and business emergency plan and would continue to do so after the implementation of

either this alternative or the proposed project. Consequently, impacts from this alternative, like the





underground storage tanks, as well as the disposal and clean up of contaminants. Mitigation has been



Development of this alternative, like the proposed project, would comply with applicable FAA laws and

regulations pertaining to development within flight zones. This alternative, like the proposed project,

would not affect flight patterns or result in obstruction of flight patterns to either the Lompoc Airport or

Vandenberg Air Force Base. Consequently, impacts from this alternative, like the proposed project,




would either not be met or be partially met with the implementation of Alternative 4:



5.0 Alternatives








Subtotal(cf/mo)

WalmartExpansion

2.9 41,621 120,701 10,000 29,000

Outdoor GardenCenter (reduction)

N/A2 (3,383) -- (3,383) --

Minor Demolition(reduction)

2.9 (188) (545) (188) (545)

Subtotal 120,156 28,455




ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. Of the

alternatives considered in this section, the No Project/No Build Alternative is environmentally superior to

the other alternatives and the project as proposed because there would be no additional increase in the

potential for environmental impacts. According to CEQA, if the No Project Alternative is identified as the

environmentally superior alternative, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative

among the other alternatives.” It should be noted that the proposed project did not result in any

significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, the three remaining alternatives selected for examination in

this EIR only incrementally reduce the impacts that were either less than significant or reduced to less

than significant. Nonetheless, an environmentally superior alternative as required by CEQA has been

identified.

5.0 Alternatives


Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 3, the 20,000-Square-Foot Expansion, No Grocery, and Tire &

Lube Express Alternative, is considered environmentally superior. The reduction of floor area would

cause an incremental reduction of the overall level of impact when compared to the proposed project.

Additionally, due to the exclusion of a grocery component from Alternative 3, it is unlikely that an

existing grocery store would close down as a result of the project. Consequently, the possibility of

physical manifestations of urban decay would be reduced (e.g., litter, boarded-up windows, graffiti, etc.);

and, therefore, this Alternative is considered to have less potential for urban decay impacts than the

proposed project. However, the proposed project did not result in any project- or cumulative-level urban

decay impacts, as the potential for physical manifestations of urban decay as a result of project

implementation were determined to be unlikely.

CEQA requires that "[a] public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible

alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that

the project would have on the environment," pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15021(a)(2).

"CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency

has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social

factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every

Californian." State CEQA Guidelines section 15021(d). The proposed project would not create any

significant impacts upon the environment; therefore, the alternatives need not be selected under CEQA.

While the overall impacts of the proposed project could be incrementally reduced by the selection of

Alternative 3, this alternative would not meet several of the project objectives at all, or to the same extent,

as follows:




By removing the grocery store facility and reducing the expansion of the existing building, employment

opportunities in the area would not be created to their maximum potential. Additionally, residents in the

project area will not be served by the grocery store component. The reduced expansion and removal of

grocery facilities will also proportionately reduce tax revenues that would benefit the City.

Further, it should be noted that the proposed project does not result in any significant and unavoidable

impacts in any environmental category, after implementation of mitigation. Therefore, none of the

alternatives effectively lessen or avoid significant impacts that would otherwise result from the Project.


6.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

INTRODUCTION

Section 15126.2(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that use of

nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a proposed project may be irreversible if a large

commitment of these resources makes their removal, indirect removal, or non-use thereafter, likely. This section of

the environmental impact report (EIR) evaluates whether the proposed project would result in the irretrievable

commitment of resources or cause irreversible changes in the environment. Also, in accordance with Section

15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section identifies any irreversible damage that could result from

environmental accidents associated with the proposed project.

IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Construction and operation of the proposed project would contribute to the incremental depletion of

resources, including renewable and nonrenewable resources. Resources such as lumber and other

forest/agricultural products, as well as water (i.e., dust suppression), are generally considered renewable

resources. Such resources would be replenished over the lifetime of the project. For example, lumber

supplies are increased as seedlings mature into trees, while water supplies are replenished as water is

redistributed through the action of the hydrologic cycle. As such, the development of the project would

not result in the irreversible commitment of renewable resources. Nevertheless, there would be an

incremental increase in the demand for these resources over the life of the project.

Nonrenewable resources, such as natural gas, petroleum products, asphalt, petrochemical construction

materials, steel and other metals, and sand and gravel, are considered to be commodities, which are

available in a finite supply. The processes that created these resources occur over a long period.

Therefore, the replacement of these resources would not occur over the life of the project. To varying

degrees, the aforementioned materials are all readily available and some materials, such as asphalt or

sand and gravel, are abundant. Other commodities such as metals, natural gas, and petroleum products

are also readily available but are finite in supply given the length of time required by the natural process

to create them.

The demand for all such resources is expected to increase regardless of whether the project is developed.

According to the Santa Barbara County Association of Government’s Regional Growth Forecast 2000–2030,

the population of the City of Lompoc will increase by about 21 percent over the 30-year period between

2000 and 2030. This increase in population will directly result in the need for more retail and commercial

facilities in order to provide the needed services associated with this growth. If not consumed by this

6.0 Irreversible Environmental Changes


project, these resources would likely be committed to other residential, commercial, public service, or

industrial projects in the region intended to meet this anticipated growth. Furthermore, the investment of

resources in the project would be typical of the level of investment normally required for retail and

commercial uses of this scale. Provided that all standard building codes, including energy conservation

standards, are followed, no wasteful use of energy or construction resources is anticipated.

IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

Irreversible long-term environmental changes associated with the proposed project would include a

small increase in local and regional vehicular traffic and the resultant increase in air pollutants and noise

emissions generated by this traffic, among other impacts. However, design features have been

incorporated into the development proposal and mitigation measures are proposed in this EIR that

would minimize or avoid the significant effects of the environmental changes associated with the

development of the project to the greatest degree feasible.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE FROM ACCIDENTS

The project proposes no uniquely hazardous uses and its operation would not be expected to cause

environmental accidents that would affect other areas.

The project site is located within a seismically active region and would be exposed to ground shaking

during a seismic event. Conformance with the regulatory provisions of the City of Lompoc and the

Uniform Building Code criteria pertaining to construction standards would minimize damage to the

extent feasible in the event of such an occurrence.


7.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require

that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a discussion of the ways in which a project could foster economic

or population growth or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding

environment. Such a discussion should also identify any way in which a proposed project would remove obstacles to

population growth, and discuss the characteristics of a project that may encourage and/or facilitate other activities

that, either individually or cumulatively, could significantly affect the environment. CEQA emphasizes that growth

in an area should not be considered beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance. The purpose of this discussion is

to evaluate the growth-inducing potential of the proposed project.

GROWTH-INDUCING POTENTIAL

In general terms, a project may foster or encourage population growth in a geographic area if it meets any

of the criteria identified below:

Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service or theprovision of new access to an area)

Economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion, etc.)

Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning, or general planamendment approval)

Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct froman “infill” type of project)

Should a project meet any of these criteria, it may be considered growth-inducing. An evaluation of the

proposed project in relation to the four criteria identified above is discussed below.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Removal of an Impediment to Growth

Growth in an area may occur as a direct result of the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to

growth. In this context, physical growth impediments may include nonexistent or inadequate access to an

area or the lack of sufficient essential public services, such as sewer and water service. The following

discussion evaluates the effects of the proposed project with respect to this criterion.

7.0 Growth Inducement


The project site is located within the Lompoc City limits in an area that is identified in the Lompoc General

Plan for the development of urban land uses. The land uses surrounding the site in all directions areserved by existing water, wastewater, gas, and electrical infrastructure. The project site is currently

connected to existing utilities infrastructure in the immediate area. The expansion of the Walmart may

only require minor upgrades to existing utilities infrastructure in the immediate area to serve theexpansion. Furthermore, the project is located in an urbanized area and is within the designated

boundary of the City’s planning area. For these reasons, the development of the project site would not

induce any additional growth in the surrounding area.

An established roadway network presently exists in the area surrounding the project site. The Walmart

Expansion Project would be served by direct connections to Central Avenue along the southern boundary

of the project site and O Street along the western boundary. The project site is currently located in thenorthwestern area of the Diversified/Lompoc Corners Shopping center and would have internal

circulation that would be connected to North L Street to the east. The proposed project does not include

any new roadways that would provide additional access or traffic capacity and facilitate additionaldevelopment in the surrounding area. Considering the existence of a roadway network adjacent to the

site, the proposed site access and circulation improvements would not constitute the removal of an

impediment to growth.

Economic Growth

In the short term, the construction of the Walmart Expansion Project may induce growth by introducing

construction employment opportunities associated with the development of the expanded facility. It isassumed that some of these temporary employment opportunities (estimated to be 20 construction

workers) could result in a few people temporarily moving into the City of Lompoc. The chance of this

occurring given the current state of the construction profession and slow down in work is not likely sincejobs could probably be provided to persons already located within the Lompoc area. Nevertheless, the

potential introduction of some construction workers into the Lompoc area would not result in a

significant increase in the local population and is not considered to be growth inducing.

Long-term growth, should it occur, would primarily be in the form of an economic response to the

increased employment opportunities that would occur on the site. The project was estimated to generate

about 85 permanent employment opportunities. The City currently has a labor force of approximately21,000 persons, with an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent, or approximately 3,200 unemployed

individuals.1 The proposed project would increase the employment population base in the City, but

given the existing unemployment rate, employees would probably be from the local area. Thus, the

1 State of California, Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and CensusDesignated Places, (November 2009).

7.0 Growth Inducement


project would not induce a substantial increase in population. Nonetheless, any small increase in persons

commuting from outside the area or potentially relocating to the area may result in a correspondingslight increase in demand for City goods and services. Given this project’s relatively small size in relation

to the City population and workforce, the economic contribution of this project alone would not be

considered significant. Consequently, the project would not be considered growth inducing.

Precedent Setting Action






Division. As such, the discretionary approvals required for the project include the approval of a


The requested discretionary approvals are standard types of approvals considered under established

procedures and would apply only to the project site. Therefore, the development of the Walmart

Expansion Project, along with the discretionary action requested, would not be a precedent-setting action.

Development of an Isolated Area

Development can be considered growth inducing when it is not contiguous to existing urban

development and “leaps” over open space areas. The proposed project is located within the Lompoc City

limits, within an area designated for urban development in the general plan, and located adjacent to

existing developed areas. The area surrounding the project site is presently developed with residential,

commercial, and vacant land uses and includes the adjacent Lompoc airport. The project will not

introduce development that is not contiguous with existing development in the City. Overall, the

Walmart Expansion Project will not result in the development of, or encroachment on, an isolated area of

open space.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposed project is not considered growth inducing.


8.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

INTRODUCTION

Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires an environmental

impact report (EIR) to briefly describe any possible significant effects that were determined not to be significant and

were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. This section addresses the potential environmental effects that

have been found not to be significant as a result of the distribution of a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and the

responses (included as Appendix 1.0). This section includes the environmental questions contained in the Initial

Study and a discussion as to why the issues were found not to be significant. Any issues not addressed in this

section are addressed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

AESTHETICS

To assist in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, the State

CEQA Guidelines identify criteria for conditions that may be deemed to constitute a substantial or



whether a project may have a significant aesthetic resource impact:

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Discussion

The proposed buildings would not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista as there are no

scenic vistas in the immediate area as identified in the City of Lompoc General Plan Urban Design Features

Map.1 No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Discussion

The existing Walmart store is located within an urbanized area. The proposed project is not located

within the viewshed of a state scenic highway.2 Consequently, the development of the proposed project

would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,

1 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Urban Design Features Map” and “Scenic Ridgelines and Roads Map,” 1997.2 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Urban Design Features Map” and “Scenic Ridgelines and Roads Map,” 1997.

8.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant


and historic buildings near a state scenic highway. No impact would occur with the implementation of

the project.

Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and itssurroundings?

Discussion

The project site exists as developed buildings, paved roads, and parking lots. The proposed project would

not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. In fact,

the proposed project would include the addition of native trees, shrubs, and grasses along the northern

and eastern project boundary. These additions could increase the visual quality of the project site. In

addition, the Planning Commission would review and must provide approval of the project architecture

to ensure compliance with the City’s established Architectural Review Guidelines. No impact would

occur with the implementation of the project.

Would the project create a source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttimeviews in the area?

Discussion

The project site currently contains the light sources from the existing interior uses at the Walmart store

and other on-site commercial uses, as well as lighting associated with parking areas and internal roads.

Development of the project would not substantially increase these existing on-site light sources. The

project would, however, include the installation of updated signs along the southern façade of the

building. The Walmart expansion would include a total of approximately 479 square feet (sf) of new

signage. The new signs would not be illuminated, with the exception of the primary Walmart sign, which

would be internally lit by light-emitting diodes (LED). Light emitted by this sign would not be projected

off the project site and would be limited to the areas within the internal main entrance of the building. In

addition, all lighting associated with the project would be developed in accordance with the City of

Lompoc Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, the project would not create a new source of substantial light

or glare, which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are

considered to be less than significant.

AGRICULTURE







whether a project may have a significant agricultural resource impact:

Would the project 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 ofthe California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion

The project site is currently developed with an existing Walmart, adjacent commercial uses, and a

parking lot. The proposed project would expand the existing Walmart store and would not convert Prime

Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively referred to as

“Farmland”), as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California

Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses.3 No impact would occur with the implementation of the

project.

Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Discussion


parking lot. The proposed project site is not used or zoned for agriculture, or held in a Williamson Act

contract. No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

Discussion


parking lot. The proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to

their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would

occur with the implementation of the project.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




3 California Department of Conservation, Santa Barbara County Important Farmland, 2006.




whether a project may have a significant agricultural resource impact:

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on anyspecies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, orregulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

Discussion

The project site is in an urbanized area, is entirely paved over with structures and parking lots, and is not

identified as being in an area of biological significance.4 In addition, a literature review of the California

Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for the Lompoc U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle indicated there

are no occurrences of sensitive plants, animals, or habitats on or immediately adjacent to the project site,

see Appendix 8.0. Consequently, the proposed project would not 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 (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No impact would occur with the


Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fishand Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

Discussion

The Santa Ynez River is located approximately 1,800 feet to the north and is designated as riparian

vegetation/stream habitat in the City’s General Plan.5 There is no riparian habitat or surface water present

on the proposed site or adjacent to the site, which is located in an urbanized area. The proposed project

would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS. No impact

would occur with the implementation of the project.

4 City of Lompoc, General Plan: “Biologically Significant Areas Map,” 1997.5 City of Lompoc, General Plan: “Biologically Significant Areas Map,” 1997.



Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Discussion

There are no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or CDFG jurisdictional drainages or wetlands on or adjacent

to this fully improved project site. The nearest watercourse to the project site is the Santa Ynez River

located 1,800 feet to the north of the project site beyond the Lompoc Airport.6,7 No impact would occur

with the implementation of the project.

Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlifespecies or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlifenursery sites?

Discussion

The project site is fully developed, is located within an existing shopping center, and is located in an

urbanized area. The project site is surrounded by the Lompoc Airport to the north, existing commercial

uses to the east and southwest, vacant land to the northwest, and residential uses to the south across

Central Avenue. The project site is not located within a designated wildlife movement corridor. The

proposed project would not 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. No impact would occur with the implementation of the

project.

Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation policy or ordinance?

Discussion

The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur with the


6 Site visit by Impact Sciences, Inc., July 7, 2009.7 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Series maps titled “Lompoc, Calif., 1959” (photo revised in

1982).



Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural CommunityConservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion

The project site is not within the purview of any habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan, nor would the proposed project affect any area so designated, directly or indirectly.

No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

CULTURAL RESOURCES





whether a project may have a significant cultural resource impact:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as defined inSection 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?

Discussion

Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines generally defines historical resources as any object,

building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or

significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,

military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with

significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic value

and are generally 50 years old or more. The structures on and adjacent to the project site are not 50 years

old and do not meet the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a)(3). Therefore, no historical resources are

located on or adjacent to the project site.8 The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse

change in the significance of a historical resource, as identified in Section 15064.5.

8 City of Lompoc, General Plan, Cultural Resources Study, 1997.



Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource, as definedin Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?

Discussion

The site is identified on the “Archaeological Sensitivity Zones” Map in the Lompoc General Plan

Resources Management Element in a relatively low sensitivity zone.9 In addition, the project site was

previously graded and has been developed with a commercial structure and parking area. During the

development of these uses, no archaeological resources were identified. However, due to the fact that

Chumash Indians and later historic peoples were located in the area, there is a possibility that undetected

artifacts or features could be present within the project boundaries. Standard mitigation measures related

to the accidental discovery of archaeological resources during site construction activities will be

incorporated into the project as presented below.

The following mitigation measures are required to reduce significant impacts to less than significant.

MM CR-1 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface

activities, all earth-disturbing work within a 200-meter radius shall be temporarily

suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance

of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may

resume. The appropriate measures may be as limited as recording the resource with the

California Archaeological Inventory database or as extensive as excavation, recordation,

and preservation of the sites that have outstanding cultural or historic significance.

Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeature?

Discussion

Paleontological resources are typically found in sedimentary rock, metamorphic rock, and isolated rock

outcrops in hilly areas. The geotechnical study for the proposed project found that the project site is

underlain by alluvial soils. No older sediment or lithified rock materials were found, and no rock

outcrops exist on the project site. In addition, the project site has been developed with a commercial

structure and parking area and was previously graded. During the development of these uses, no

paleontological resources were identified. Consequently, the potential for paleontological resources to

occur on the project site is considered low. However, there is a possibility that undetected paleontological

artifacts could be present within the project boundaries. Standard mitigation measures related to the

9 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Archaeological Sensitivity Zones Map,” 1997.



accidental discovery of paleontological resources during site construction activities will incorporated into

the project as presented below.


MM CR-2 In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during project subsurface

activities, all earth-disturbing work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily

suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance

of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may

resume. The appropriate measures may be as limited as recording the resource with the

California Archaeological Inventory database or as extensive as excavation, recordation,

and preservation of the sites that have outstanding paleontological significance.

Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion

As previously discussed above, the project site was previously graded and has been developed with a

commercial structure and parking area. During the development of these uses, no archaeological

resources were identified. However, due to the fact that Chumash Indians and later historic peoples were

located in the area, there is a possibility that undetected artifacts or features could be present within the

project boundaries. Standard mitigation measures related to the accidental discovery of human remains

during site construction activities will be incorporated into the project as presented below.


MM CR-3 If human remains are accidentally discovered or recognized during construction, all

excavation and ground-disturbing work on or adjacent to the project site (or area of

discovery) shall stop immediately. The County Coroner shall be contacted, and the

Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified immediately, and their

recommendations and requirements adhered to prior to continuation of construction

activity.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS







whether a project may have a significant impact to geology and soils:

Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a knownfault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42);

Strong seismic ground shaking;

Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or

Landslides.

Discussion

The nearest active faults within a 65-mile radius of the project site include the Los Alamos Fault, the

Hosgri Fault, Santa Ynez Fault, and the San Andreas Fault. The closest active fault to the project site is the

Los Alamos Fault, which is located approximately 6 miles to the northeast. No faults that occur on or near

the project site were identified on Alquist-Priolo maps.10 No impact would occur with the


The region is located in a generally high-seismicity zone with the project site located within Seismic

Zone 4. The peak horizontal ground acceleration (acceleration of a particle during the course of

earthquake motion) for the project site was found to be 0.29 g (acceleration due to gravity). The 2001

California Building Code (CBC) peak horizontal ground acceleration for Seismic Zone 4 is 0.44 g. With

the use of seismic design parameters in the CBC,11 as well as adherence to the most current state, County,

and City standards for earthquake-resistant construction impacts related to seismic hazards would be

reduced to less than significant.

Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength during a significant seismic event. It occurs in saturated, loose,

fine- to medium-grained sands, and in very soft to medium stiff silts. Seismically induced settlement of

sufficient magnitude to cause structural damage is normally associated with poorly consolidated,

predominantly sandy soils, or variable consolidation characteristics within building areas.12 The potential

for liquefaction also depends on the height of the underlying groundwater. As described in the soils

10 Earth Systems Pacific, Soils Engineering Report Wal-Mart No. 1989-06 Expansion, 2007.11 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/t24_2007tried.htm.12 Ibid.



report, groundwater was encountered approximately 25.5 feet below the existing surface (see

Appendix 8.0). Therefore, in the event of an earthquake of 6.6 magnitude on the Richter scale, the

potential for liquefaction of the project site would settle from 2.0 to 2.2 inches.13 With implementation of

the recommendations (contained in the soils engineering report prepared for the project refer to pages 17

through 35) pertaining to site preparation, grading, trench backfill, foundations, interior slabs-on-grade

and exterior pedestrian flatwork, retaining wall, pavement sections, and drainage around improvements,

potential geological impacts including liquefaction would be reduced to less than significant.

As the project site is on fairly level ground, slope is less than 2 percent, and there are no nearby

topographic features, such as slope hazards, there would be no impact on the project site from

landslides.14 No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.


MM GEO-1 All new or rehabilitated structures shall be designed in accordance with the current

seismic design parameters in the California Building Code (CBC), as well as adherence to

the most current state, County, and City standards for earthquake-resistant construction.

MM GEO-2 The project shall comply with all of the recommendations contained in the Earth Systems

Pacific’s 2007 Soils Engineering Report Wal-Mart No. 1989-06 Expansion pertaining to site

preparation, grading, trench backfill, foundations, interior slabs-on-grade and exterior

pedestrian flatwork, retaining wall, pavement sections, and drainage around

improvements (contained on pages 17 through 35 of the Earth Systems Pacific report.)

Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil

Discussion

The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The site is

relatively flat and grading activities would be minimal. As described above under Project Design, the

proposed project would incorporate an erosion and sedimentation control plan in its SWPPP, to minimize

soil erosion. This plan shall be prepared in accordance with current adopted version of the California

State Construction General Permit. Please refer to Hydrology and Water Quality for a list of mitigation

measures to be included as part of the project to reduce erosion impacts. With the implementation of

Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than

significant.

13 Earth Systems Pacific, Soils Engineering Report Wal-Mart No. 1989-06 Expansion, 2007.14 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Safety Element,” Geologic and Soils Hazards Map, 1997.



Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a resultof the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral reading, subsidence, liquefaction orcollapse?

Discussion

The project site contains the existing Walmart store and the associated sidewalks, curbs, and parking lot.

The proposed project would expand the existing building by 41,433 new net square feet. The site is not

identified as being in an area where soil is unstable, or would become unstable as a result of the project,

and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral reading, subsidence, or collapse. In addition, with

implementation of the recommendations contained in the soils engineering report prepared for the

project (refer to pages 17 through 35) pertaining to site preparation, grading, trench backfill, foundations,

interior slabs-on-grade and exterior pedestrian flatwork, retaining wall, pavement sections, and drainage

around improvements, there would be no impact from potential geological conditions.

Would the project 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?

Discussion

The proposed project would not 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. In addition expansive index testing of

soil and crushed rock sample from the project site indicates these materials are very low (non expansive)

to low expansion.

Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewaterdisposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Discussion

The project site is currently surrounded by developed land uses and sanitary sewers are available for the

disposal of wastewater. Therefore, implementation of the project would not require the construction of

septic tanks for wastewater disposal. There would be no impact.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY





whether a project may have a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality:



Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Discussion

Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated by the State Water Quality Control Board

and its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Storm water quality is regulated under the

Federal Clean Water Act, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The

NPDES program controls water pollution by regulating point and non-point sources that discharge

pollutants into waters of the United States.

In the case of Walmart, the project would be under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB for its

NPDES Construction Permit, and the City of Lompoc’s NPDES Phase II municipal permit, as described in

the City’s Storm Water Management Program and associated requirements for ongoing operations.

Walmart is not subject to the requirement for an Industrial Permit.

Construction

Construction activities involving soil disturbances such as excavation, demolition, stockpiling, and

grading activities could result in increased erosion and sedimentation into surface waters, and could

produce contaminated storm water runoff. The proposed project would disturb over 1 acre (43,560 sf) of

the existing site and would require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the state’s

General Construction Permit be prepared and implemented during project construction, to minimize

erosion and sedimentation to control the contamination of storm water runoff generated by the project.

The SWPPP would include best management practices (BMPs) to reduce sedimentation during

construction. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and SWPPP measures (included as a

mitigation measure) would reduce potential impacts related to water quality during construction to a less

than significant level.

Post Construction

The existing project site is located within an urbanized area that is connected to the City's storm drain

system. The proposed project would use the existing storm drain system, which is adequate to serve the

proposed addition. No changes or additions to the City’s storm drain system are proposed.

Mitigation measures are proposed, requiring storm water filters to be installed in existing storm drain

inlets. A small decrease of 2,300 square feet in the amount of impervious area on site is proposed.

Thirty-seven parking spaces will be removed to accommodate the addition to the building, reducing the

potential for oil, grease and other pollutants to be deposited on site in parking areas. While the



percentage of the existing parking lot that is regularly used may increase with the additional square

footage proposed, impacts are evaluated based on the proposed change in relation to the existing

condition of the site. Therefore, the reduction in the amount of parking on site will reduce the potential

for pollutants in storm water.

Overall, storm water pollutants and contaminants are anticipated to be reduced through the installation

and maintenance of the new storm water filters within the parking area, and the requirement that new

portions of the roof to drain to landscaping. Mitigation requiring the planting of low maintenance,

drought tolerant plants is also expected to reduce the amount of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers

needed on-site, as well as the amount of watering necessary to maintain them.

Compliance with the City's Storm Water Management Program requirements (included as a mitigation

measures) would reduce potential impacts related to water quality post construction to a less than

significant level.


MM HYD-1 A Notice of Intent shall be filed with the SWPPP, meeting all the requirements of the

currently adopted Construction General Permit, shall be submitted to the City Planning

Division and the City Engineering Division for review. No grading shall take place until

a SWPPP for the project has been approved, a grading permit has been issued, and the

approved SWPPP is located on site and implemented.

MM HYD-2 The proposed project shall be modified to include post-construction water-quality

control measures, as required in the City's Storm Water Management Program, which

was conditionally approved at the Regional Water Quality Control Board hearing on

October 17, 2008, to offset the impact of the additional impervious area proposed. These

measures include the following:

Filters that remove sediment, oil, grease, and trash shall be provided to treat allstorm water that will drain to the City's storm drain system from on-site paved areasand private streets. The location, type, and details of the filters proposed shall beshown on the project's erosion control plan and grading and drainage plans, whichshall be reviewed by the City Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuanceof grading permits.

Adequate maintenance and replacement of storm water filters shall be ensured.Filters shall be adequately maintained and replaced, per manufacturer’sspecifications. Filters must be cleaned out at least twice a year, before and after therainy season. At any time filters are not functioning correctly and water is ponding asa result, the filters shall be cleaned out and replaced, if necessary.



No pollutants, including, but not limited to, sediment, chemicals, trash andcontaminated storm water shall be discharged from private property (or otherproperty where they could be transported) into City property, the City's storm drainsystem, streets, storm channels, or waterways, either during or after construction.

All roof drains and gutters draining the portion of the building which is altered oradded, shall drain to landscaping or to properly installed and maintained rainbarrels.

All new landscaping shall be drought tolerant and low maintenance.

These measures shall be submitted to the City's Planning Division and Public Works

Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The BMPs

shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to meet performance standards

established by the City. These may include fossil filters in the inlet structures for

pretreatment of the storm water or a storm water interceptor capable of handling the first

flush of the storm.

Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater tablelevel (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not supportexisting land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Discussion

The project site is located over the Lompoc Groundwater Basin. The proposed project would not add or

withdraw water directly from any aquifer in the area, as the project would be connected to the City water

distribution system. No grading activities are proposed that would penetrate the groundwater basin.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impact to the quantity or quality of local

groundwater. The project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater

recharge in a way that would cause local wells to drop to a level where they could not support existing or

planned uses. As described under Project Design, the proposed project would install new sinks and

remodel existing sinks to include sensor-activated low-flow faucets. As such, the proposed project would

result no impact.

Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltationon or off site?



Discussion

The project site is located in a developed area that connects to the City's storm drain system. No alteration

of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area is proposed, as grading on this developed site will be

minimal and the addition and altered portions of the site will be designed to drain in the same direction

as they had previously. No streams or rivers cross the project site or will be impacted by the project. The

proposed project will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to be prepared to address storm

water pollution prevention and erosion control on site during construction. On completion of the project,

areas that are disturbed during construction will either be covered by pavement, structures or

landscaping and mulch. As a result, there would be limited potential for erosion to occur on the project

site.

Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in amanner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

Discussion

As no alteration of the existing drainage pattern is proposed, and there are no streams or rivers on or

adjacent to the site, these factors would not result in adverse impacts. The existing Walmart drainage

system, comprised of roof drains and surface flow, directs runoff to storm drain inlets inside the project

site, which are to remain. Some runoff is captured on site by landscaping. The proposed project would

reduce the amount of impervious surface by 2,300 square feet by adding this amount of new landscaped

area. The proposed project would include more building square footage and reduce the number of

parking spaces. The existing parking lot would be repaved and resealed while leaving drain inlets in

place. As the proposed project would expand the existing Walmart store over existing paved surfaces and

would decrease the amount of impervious area on site, volumes and rates of flow are not anticipated to

increase. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Would the project create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or plannedstorm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Discussion

As described under the Discussion of the first hydrological threshold, the construction of the proposed

project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and SWPPP measures

which would reduce potential impacts related to the creation or contribution to exceeding the capacity of

existing or planned storm water drainage systems. The existing project site is located within an urbanized

area that is connected to the City's storm drain system. The proposed project would use the existing



storm drain system, which is adequate to serve the proposed addition. No changes or additions to the

City’s storm drain system are proposed. Furthermore, the reduction in the number of parking spaces and

the decrease in the amount of impervious area on-site would reduce the potential for pollutants in storm

water. Compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management Program requirements and Mitigation

Measures MM HYD-1 and MM HYD-2 would reduce potential sources of polluted runoff to less than

significant.

Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Discussion

As described above in both the first threshold discussion and the discussion above, the proposed project

would comply with construction requirements through implementation of a SWPPP and incorporation of

Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1. Post construction impacts would include a reduced amount of

impervious area, reduced parking spaces, and installation of new storm water filters within the parking

area. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM HYD-2 would require the proposed project to comply

with the City’s Storm Water Management Program. The proposed project would not otherwise

substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant.

Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood HazardBoundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Discussion

The project site is currently located in the FEMA floodplain hazard zone X, which means that the project

site is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. This is an area of minimal to moderate flooding. The

project site is also shown in the General Plan to be located outside of the floodway fringe and the

floodway.15 As the proposed project is designated for Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and the

proposed project would expand the existing Walmart store, no impacts on housing from flooding would

occur. Since the project site is not located in a floodplain zone, there would be no impacts on structures

from flooding.

Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect floodflows?

15 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Safety Element,” Flood Hazard Areas Map, 1997.



Discussion

The project site is currently located in the FEMA floodplain hazard zone X, which means that the project

site is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. The project site is also shown in the General Plan to be

located outside of the floodway fringe and the floodway.16 Since the project site is not located in a

floodplain zone, there would be no impacts on structures from flooding.

Would the project 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?

Discussion

The closest of the three reservoirs on the Santa Ynez River to the project site is the Bradbury Dam at Lake

Cachuma. The Bradbury Dam is located about 28 river miles upstream from the City of Lompoc. The City

has a reverse 911 system to notify the community of emergency situations. The City’s Safety Element,

contained in its General Plan, specifies policies and measures intended to mitigate potential hazards

associated with dam failures. As noted in the EIR prepared for the General Plan, these policies and

measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. The development of the proposed project

would therefore result in less than significant impacts related to this criterion.

Would the project expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion

The proposed project would not create a threat of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The site is

located approximately 10 miles from the ocean, which would make the impact of a tsunami unlikely. The

project site is also not located near a water body, or significant slope, thus making mudflows and seiches

unlikely as well.

LAND USE AND PLANNING





whether a project may have a significant land use and planning impacts:

Would the project physically divide an established community?

16 City of Lompoc, General Plan, “Safety Element,” Flood Hazard Areas Map, 1997.



Discussion

The existing Shopping Center has a land use designation of General Commercial (GC) and zoning of

PCD. The surrounding land uses include Business Park (BP) to the north; Medium Density Residential

(R2) to the south; PCD and BP to the east; and BP to the west. The proposed project would expand the

existing Walmart store by 41,433 new net square feet on an already developed site. The proposed project

would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur with the implementation

of the project.

Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, orzoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact?

Discussion

The proposed project’s current General Plan Land Use Designation is GC and zoning is PCD. This land

use designation and zoning allow for a wide variety of retail, office, and service-oriented enterprises to

meet the needs of residents and visitors. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable

land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project is consistent with the

City’s General Plan and zoning. No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservationplan?

Discussion

The project site is not within the purview of any habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan, nor would the proposed project affect any area so designated, directly or indirectly.

No impact would occur with the implementation of the project.

MINERAL RESOURCES





whether a project may have a significant mineral resource impact:

Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to theregion and the residents of the state?



Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion

The City’s General Plan does not identify the project area as being a locally important mineral resource

recovery site.17 The proposed project would not result in a loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur with

the implementation of the project.

POPULATION AND HOUSING





whether a project may have a significant population and housing impact:

Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposingnew homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and other infrastructure)?

Discussion

The project site consists of the existing Walmart store, garden center, and a paved parking lot. The

proposed project would expand the existing Walmart store by 41,433 new net square feet and would not

involve the construction of residential units. This expansion of commercial square footage would produce

20 temporary construction employees and 85 permanent employees. The City's current labor force

consists of 21,000 persons, with an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent, or 3,200 individuals.18 The

proposed project would increase the employment population base in the City, but given the existing

unemployment rate, employees would probably be from the local area. Thus, the project would not

induce a substantial increase in population. Impacts would be less than significant with the


The project site is located within the Lompoc City limits in an area that is identified in the General Plan

for the development of urban land uses. The land uses surrounding the site to the north, south, east and

west are already serviced by existing water, wastewater, gas, and electrical infrastructure. The expansion

17 City of Lompoc, General Plan Safety Element: Flood Hazard Areas Map, 1997.18 State of California, Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census

Designated Places, November 2009.



of the Walmart may only require minor upgrades to existing utilities infrastructure in the immediate area

to serve the expansion. For these reasons, the development of the project site would not induce additional

growth in the surrounding area.

Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere?

Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere?

Discussion

The project site is located in a retail Shopping Center. The proposed project would expand the existing

Walmart store from 113,221 square feet to 151,271 commercial square feet. Therefore, the proposed

project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, which would necessitate

the construction or replacement of housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur with the implementation

of the project.

PUBLIC SERVICES





whether a project may have a significant public services impact:

Would the project create substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, responsetimes or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection?

Discussion

The City of Lompoc Fire Department (LFD) provides fire services in the project area. The fire station that

would provide first response to the site is Fire Station No. 2, located at 1100 North D Street and

approximately 1.1 miles to the southeast of the project site. The typical goal for fire flow for the LFD is

2 hours at 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The goal for the response time is 5 minutes or less for



90 percent of the calls. As Station No. 2 is approximately 1.1 miles from the site, response time would be

less than 5 minutes.19

In addition, as part of the review process, LFD would review final project plans and make

recommendations for fire protection services and fire flow rates. Depending on the outcome of the

review, improvements to the water system (e.g., additional hydrants) may be required, at the cost of the

applicant, to provide the required fire flow for the project. In addition, the proposed project would be

required to comply with all applicable state and local codes and ordinances, as well as pay applicable

City development impact fees, which are used to reduce development impacts and fund fire services.

Impacts to fire services would be less than significant with the implementation of the project.20


Police Protection?

Discussion

The City of Lompoc Police Department (LPD) provides police services in the project area. The LPD

operates one station, located at 107 Civic Center Plaza, approximately 2.4 miles southeast of the project

site. The department has its own jail and dispatch center. It handles emergency telephone calls (i.e., 911),

non-emergency telephone calls, and dispatches police, fire, and ambulance service. The department is

staffed with 51 full-time sworn officers, 23 full-time non-sworn officers, and 16 permanent/part-time

employees. The goal the LPD strives to maintain for emergency response time and non-emergency

response time is 3 and 5 minutes, respectively. As the station is approximately 2.4 miles from the site,

response time for emergency calls would be within the 3- and 5-minute goal. The proposed project would

potentially increase the existing workload of the LPD in a minor way, but not to a level the LPD considers

to be problematic. The proposed project would be required to pay applicable City development impact

fees, which are used to reduce development impacts and fund police services. Impacts to police services

would be less than significant with the implementation of the project.

19 Telephone communication with Fire Chief Linual White of the LFD and Impact Sciences on July 22, 2009.20 Telephone communication with Fire Chief Linual White of the LFD and Impact Sciences on July 22, 2009.




Schools?

Discussion

The proposed project would expand the Walmart store by 41,433 new net square feet. The proposed

Walmart expansion would neither create additional housing nor substantial population numbers.

Consequently, the project would not impact schools. No impacts would occur with the implementation of

the project.


Parks?

Discussion



Consequently, the project would not impact parks. No impacts would occur with the implementation of

the project.


Other public facilities?



Consequently, the project would not impact other public facilities. No impacts would occur with the




RECREATION





whether a project may have a significant recreation impact:

Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilitiessuch that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Discussion


Walmart expansion would neither create additional housing nor substantially increase population

numbers. Consequently, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional

parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts would occur with the implementation of the project.

Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilitieswhich might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion

The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing retail store. The land use is designated for

GC and zoned for PCD. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impacts would occur with the implementation of

the project.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS





whether a project may have a significant utilities and service systems impact:

Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast Region of the Regional WaterQuality Control Board?

Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities orexpansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?



Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve theproject that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’sexisting commitments?

Discussion

The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast region

of the RWQCB. The City of Lompoc owns and operates the Lompoc Regional Wastewater Reclamation

Plant (LRWRP), which provides wastewater treatment to the project site and surrounding area. The

LRWRP has a current design capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day and currently services approximately

3.0 million gallons per day of wastewater. The estimated water usage for the expanded store would be

the same as for the existing store; as such, wastewater generation would also be the same. Impacts would

be less than significant with implementation of the project.

Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion ofexisting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Discussion

The proposed project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage treatment facilities

or expansion of existing facilities. The project is located within an existing urbanized area, and the storm

water would be collected in the existing drainage system connecting to the City’s storm water system,

which has sufficient capacity to incorporate the expansion. In general, site drainage would be consistent

with current conditions and not substantially increase over existing conditions.

Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements andresources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Discussion

The proposed project would use the existing connections for the use of water. As described in Project

Design, the proposed project would replace the existing faucets with low-flow faucets. The overall

projected water usage for the expansion will be 16,159 gallons per day, a increase of 2,625 gallons per day,

as shown in Table 8.0-2, below. This increase in water demand results from the addition of 20 temporary

and 85 full time employees. The City provides water resources to City residents and businesses through

the extraction of groundwater from the Lompoc Plain, which is located within the Lompoc Groundwater

Basin. The City has sufficient resources to service the site with water and does not require substantial

additional water service. In addition, estimated water usage would be the same as for the existing store.21

21 EDA Design Professionals, Development Plan – Design Review planning application, December 2008.



Table 8.0-1Existing Project Water Consumption

Land Use Size (sf) Consumption Ratea Total (gpd)Walmart 104,453 96 gallons/1,000 sf 10,027

Outdoor Garden Center 8,768 400 gallons/1,000 sfb 3,507Total 13,534

sf=square feet; gpd = gallons per dayIn the absence of consumption rates for the City of Lompoc, representative consumption rates were taken from the City of Los Angeles.a Source: City of Los Angeles, 2006 L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, M. Public Utilities.

Water Consumption is assumed to be 120% of wastewater generation.Commercial Use is 80 gallons/1,000 sf wastewater or 96 gallons/1,000 sf water

b Source: There is no rate listed in the CEQA Thresholds Guide for Garden Center, Greenhouse, Floral, etc. The Garden Center Magazineestimates 0.3-0.4 gallons per sf (or 300-400 gallons per 1,000 sf). Website: http://www.gardencentermagazine.com/Article.aspx?article_id=78949, March 12, 2010.

Table 8.0-2Proposed Project Water Consumption

Land Use Size (sf) Consumption Rate a Total (gpd)Walmart expansion 41,621 96 gallons/1,000 sf 3,996

Outdoor Garden Center (reduction) (3,383) 400 gallons/1,000 sf b (1,353)Minor demolition (reduction) (188) 96 gallons/1,000 sf (18)

Total 2,625

sf=square feet; gpd = gallons per dayIn the absence of consumption rates for the City of Lompoc, representative consumption rates were taken from the City of Los Angeles.a Source: City of Los Angeles, 2006 L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, M. Public Utilities.

Water Consumption is assumed to be 120% of wastewater generation.Commercial Use is 80 gallons/1,000 sf wastewater or 96 gallons/1,000 sf water

b Source: There is no rate listed in the CEQA Thresholds Guide for Garden Center, Greenho use, Floral, etc. The Garden Center Magazineestimates 0.3-0.4 gallons per sf (or 300-400 gallons per 1,000 sf). Website: http://www.gardencentermagazine.com /Article.aspx?article_id=78949, March 12, 2010.

Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solidwaste disposal needs?

Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion

The City of Lompoc provides garbage and recycling collection services in the City and owns and operates

the Lompoc Sanitary Landfill. Recyclable material is collected by the City and transported to the Health

Sanitation Service material recovery facility in Santa Maria. Waste is disposed of at the City of Lompoc



Sanitary Landfill. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 2,146,779 cubic yards and a permitted peak

throughout of 400 tons per day. Presently, the landfill operates at an average of 153 tons per day.22 The

landfill is anticipated to have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste from the City through the

year 2047.

Construction of the proposed project would involve site preparation activities (e.g., demolition and

building) that would generate waste materials. Overall a small amount of materials would be demolished

consisting of approximately 3,571 square feet of floor area. This one time disposal of material will not

exceed capacity at the facility. In addition, as required by City of Lompoc, construction materials would

be recycled to the extent feasible and this impact would be less than significant.

The existing Walmart store is approximately 113,221 square feet and based on the regional shopping

center solid waste generation rate (0.0012 pound per square foot) generates 135.9 tons per year.23 At

buildout, the proposed project would total 151,271 square feet and is anticipated to generate 181.5 tons

per year for a net increase of 45.6 tons per year of solid waste. This would increase the average tons per

day accepted at the Lompoc Sanitary Landfill by 0.125 tons per day, or 0.08 percent. With the application

of source reduction, reuse, and recycling, as required by the City of Lompoc, the landfill disposal of solid

waste from the proposed expansion of the project could be reduced by 50 percent, to 22.8 tons per year

(compared to 45.6 tons per year for the proposed project). This would increase the average tons per day

accepted at the Lompoc Sanitary Landfill by 0.06 tons per day, or 0.04 percent. Because the project would

comply with all applicable regulations, and the impact related to solid waste disposal would be less than

significant.

22 California Integrated Waste Management Board, “Solid Waste Information System, City of Lompoc SanitaryLandfill,” http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/42-AA-0017/Detail/. 2009.

23 County of Santa Barbara, Draft of Thresholds & Guidelines Section on Solid Waste Attachment A, 2008.


9.0 LIST OF INDIVIUALS INVOLVEDIN THE EIR PREPARATION

LIST OF EIR PREPARERS

The following persons/organizations were involved in the preparation of this EIR.

City of Lompoc

Arleen T. Pelster, AICP, Community Development Director

Lucille T. Breese, AICP, Planning Manager

Keith C. Neubert, Principal Planner

Kevin McCune, City Engineer

Impact Sciences, Inc.

Mark A. Austin, AICP, Associate Principal

Tony Locacciato, AICP, Managing Principal

Alan Sako, Air Quality Specialist

Chris Hampson, Staff Planner

Ian Hillway, Publications Manager

Lisa Cuoco, Publications Coordinator

Brittanny O’Hanlon, Publications Editor

Paul Manzer, Arts and Communications Director


10.0 REFERENCES AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

California Air Resources Board. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit.November 16, 2007.

California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/t24_2007tried.htm.

California Department of Conservation. Santa Barbara County Important Farmland. 2006.

California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement: A Technical Supplement to the TrafficNoise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, California: October 1998.

California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004.Figure 2. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF. 2006.

California Energy Commission, 2008. “SB 1368 Emission Performance Standards Adopted Regulations.”http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/regulations/index.html.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, 2006. Climate Action Team Report toGovernor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

California Gas and Electric Utilities, California Gas Report Supplement. http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/cgr.shtml. 2009.

California Integrated Waste Management Board.

California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division. “CPUC Regulation and Natural GasInfrastructure.” http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Gas/GasIssuesReports.htm. May 14, 2009.

California Public Utilities Commission. “Natural Gas.” http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Gas.December 2009.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, “Circulation Element.” 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, “Safety Element,” Flood Hazard Areas Map. 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, “Safety Element,” Geologic and Soils Hazards Map. 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, Archaeological Sensitivity Zones Map. 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, Cultural Resources Study. 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, “Safety Element,” Wildland Fire Hazard Areas Map. 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, “Biologically Significant Areas Map.” 1997.

City of Lompoc. General Plan, “Urban Design Features Map” and “Scenic Ridgelines and Roads Map.”1997.

10.0 References and Persons Consulted


City of Lompoc. General Plan Revision Environmental Impact Report. October 1997.

City of Lompoc. 2030 General Plan, Circulation Element. 2009.

City of Lompoc. Old Town Specific Plan. January 12, 2001.

City of Lompoc. “Electric Division.” http://www.cityoflompoc.com/utilities/electric.htm. December 16,2009.

City of Lompoc, Utility Department. “Utility Rate Information.” http://www.cityoflompoc.com/utilities/rateinfo.htm. December 2009.

City of Lompoc, Public Works Department. “City of Lompoc Transit (COLT).”http://www.cityoflompoc.com/transit/colt.htm. December 2009.

City of Lompoc. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.08.030.E, “Special Noise Source Prohibitions.”

City of Lompoc. Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.048.030, “Development Plan Required.”

City of Lompoc. Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 17.112.020, “Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements.”

Conversation between Christopher A. Joseph & Associates and Larry Silva, City of Lompoc, August 26,2009.

County of Santa Barbara. Draft of Thresholds & Guidelines Section on Solid Waste, Attachment A. 2008.

Earth Systems Pacific, Soils Engineering Report Wal-Mart No. 1989-06 Expansion. 2007.

EDA Design Professionals. Development Plan – Design Review planning application. December 2008.

Energy Information Administration. “Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994.”http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/exec2.html. 2008.

Energy Information Administration. “Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and SulfurHexafluoride,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/summary/other_gases.html. 2008.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, SecondEdition. June 2004.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. 2003.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 8th Edition. 2008.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change –Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge (UK):Cambridge University Press. 1996.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2001: Tropospheric Ozone,”http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/142.htm. 2001.



Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,Summary for Policymakers,” http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf. 2007.

Jammalamadaka, Vijaya. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Conversation with ImpactSciences, May 5, 2003.

Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from Stephen L. Johnson, December 19, 2007.

Lompoc Record. “L.A. Investors Buy Lompoc Corners Shopping Center.” http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/article_eaff96f5-0bd4-59ab-932f-750aa280b133.html. July 31, 2007.

Los Angeles Grand Avenue Authority, City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. TheGrand Avenue Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 2006.

Miller, Harris. Miller & Hanson. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006.

National Climatic Data Center. 2009. “Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions,”http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html.

National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Special Report 209. 2000.

Rincon Consultants. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Wal-Mart Store No. 1989, 701 West CentralAvenue, Lompoc, California. July 11, 2008.

Rincon Consultants. City of Lompoc General Plan Update, Issue Paper on Noise and Air Quality Issues. July2008.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.2007 Clean Air Plan. 2007.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections inEnvironmental Documents. July 2005.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections inEnvironmental Documents. 2008.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Plan, 1993.

Schmidt, Gavin A. “Water Vapour: Feedback or Forcing?” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142.2005.

Southern California Gas Company. “Communities We Serve.” http://www.socalgas.com/community/communities.shtml. December 16, 2009.

State of California, Employment Development Department. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and CensusDesignated Places. June 2009.

Telephone communication with Fire Chief Linual White of the LFD and Impact Sciences on July 22, 2009.



United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Annex I Parties – GHG total withoutLULUCF,” http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_data_from_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3841.php. n.d.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Fundamentals.Springfield, Virginia: September 1980.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Class I Ozone Depleting Substances.”http://www.epa.gov /ozone/ods.html. 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms,”http://epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. “High GWP Gases and Climate Change,”http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions andSinks 1990-2006,” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Methane: Sources and Emissions.” http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html. 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of GlobalWarming Potential for Ozone-Depleting Substances.” http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/January/Day-19/pr-372.html. 1996.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The Accelerated Phase-Out of Class 1 Ozone-DepletingSubstances.” http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/accfact.html. 2009.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-CycleAssessment of Emissions and Sinks. 2002.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 7.5 Minute Series maps, “Lompoc, Calif., 1959” (photo revised in1982).

United States Geological Survey. “The Water Cycle: Evaporation.” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.html. 2009.

Wallace, Glenn. “City Ponders Power Needs as Rates Rise.” Lompoc Record.com, November 28, 2009.http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/article_7ab67cc6-dcba-11de-93f7-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story.

World Resources Institute. “How US State GHG Emissions Compare Internationally,”http://earthtrends.wri.org /updates/node/106. 2007.