1290 grand avenue is

8/13/2019 1290 Grand Avenue Is

1/47

City of Ojai

1290 Grand AvenueWireless CommunicationFacility

Administrative DraftInitial Study -

MitigatedNegativeDeclaration

November 2013


2/47

1290 Grand Avenue Wireless CommunicationFacility

Administrative DraftInitial Study and Mitigated Negative

Declaration

Prepared by:

City of OjaiCommunity Development Department

401 S. Ventura Ave.Ojai, California 93014

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.180 North Ashwood Avenue

Ventura, California 93003

November 2013


3/47

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


4/47

1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication Facili tyInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of Ojaii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Initial Study Page

1. Project title ........................................................................................................................... 1

2. Lead agency name and address ....................................................................................... 13. Contact person and phone number ................................................................................. 14. Project location ................................................................................................................... 15. Project sponsors name and address ............................................................................... 16. General plan designation .................................................................................................. 17. Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 18. Description of project ........................................................................................................ 19. Surrounding land uses and setting ................................................................................. 210. Other public agencies whose approval is required ....................................................... 2

Environmental Factors Affected .............................................................................................. 6Determination............................................................................................................................. 7

Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................... 8

DiscussionI. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 5II. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................... 9III. Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 11IV. Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 13V. Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 19VI. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 20VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 22VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 23

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................. 25X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................ 28XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 30XII. Noise ........................................................................................................................ 30XIII. Population and Housing ...................................................................................... 35XIV. Public Services ........................................................................................................ 36XV. Recreation ............................................................................................................... 37XVI. Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................... 37XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 39XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................... 40

References ................................................................................................................................. 42

Tables

Table 1 Known and Potential Special-Status and Sensitive SpeciesWithin the Proposed Project Area ................................................................... 15

Table 2 Proposed Tree Removals ................................................................................... 17Table 3 Noise Measurement Results ............................................................................. 32Table 4 Summary of Exterior Noise Standards ........................................................... 33


5/47


City of Ojaiii

Table 5 Typical Noise Levels at Construction Sites ..................................................... 34

FiguresFigure 1 Regional Location .................................................................................... 3Figure 2 Site Location .............................................................................................. 4Figure 3 Proposed Project Plans ............................................................................ 5

Appendix A Visual Simulations and Other Project PlansAppendix B Biological Resources AssessmentAppendix C Oak Tree ReportAppendix D Phase I Archaeological StudyAppendix E EMF Study and Existing Wireless Tower Inventory


6/47


City of Ojai1

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project title: 1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication Facility

2. Lead agencyname and address: City of Ojai

Community Development Department401 S. Ventura Ave.Ojai, California 93014

3. Contact Person andPhone Number: Ann McLaughlin, Interim Community Development Director

4. Project location: The project site is located in the rear portions of the 3.85 acreproperty currently developed as the Lutheran Church of OurRedeemer, located at 1290 Grand Avenue. Figure 1 shows thesites regional location and Figure 2 shows an aerial view of thesite location.

5. Project sponsorsname and address: Jerry Ambrose, Eukon Group

3905 State Street, #7-188Santa Barbara, CA 93105

6. General Plandesignation: P (Public, Quasi-Public)

7. Zoning: P-L (Public)

8. Description of project:

AT&T proposes to construct a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a 65 ft. mono-eucalyptus tree within the rear yard portions of a property currently developed with TheLutheran Church of Our Redeemer located at 1290 Grand Avenue. The area proposed forwireless communication facility development would be approximately 350 square feet in sizeand would be leased from the landowner by AT&T. The proposed structures would be set backapproximately 40 feet south from the southern edge of the Lutheran Church structure. Thewireless communication structures would be set back approximately 211 feet from the northern

property line adjacent to Grand Avenue.

The wireless communication improvements proposed within the lease area would consist ofthe following:

A 65 ft. tall mono-eucalyptus pole would be constructed with up to 12 eight-footantennas and ancillary equipment mounted to the mono-eucalyptus pole atapproximately 63 feet above ground level. All antennas would be integrated into the


7/47


City of Ojai2

mono-eucalyptus pole and would be painted a green/brown color to match the polessynthetic tree foliage.

A 12-foot tall equipment shed approximately 308 square feet in size would beconstructed and painted to match the existing church building. The shed would containelectrical/telecommunication equipment and a 50KW back-up power diesel generator.

Landscaping would be installed around the southern and eastern portions of the leasearea to screen the facility.

The existing telecommunication and electrical infrastructure serving the project site would needto be connected to the proposed facility. The existing telecommunication lines locatedunderground adjacent to Grand Avenue would be extended approximately 270 feet south via aconduit trench. The trench would traverse through the existing paved parking lot serving thechurch where the lines would ultimately connect to the proposed telecommunication facility.In addition, electrical and water lines would be extended east from the existing church buildingand located in the same trench where they would also be connected to the facility. Please referto Figure 3, Enlarged Site Plan.

Access to the project area would be established by a proposed 12-foot wide non-exclusiveaccess easement that would generally mirror the location of the proposed utility line trench.The easement would permit access via the existing church parking lot driveway connecting toGrand Avenue, through the parking lot, and through the undeveloped portions of the site tothe northeast corner of the proposed lease area (See Figure 3). The existing church access routeand all existing parking spaces would not be impacted by the proposed project.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The properties located east, west, and south of the project site have land use designation of MR(Medium Density Residential). All of these properties contain existing single-family residential

dwellings. The properties located north of the project site (across Grand Avenue) are primarilyagricultural uses within the unincorporated portions of Ventura County.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:

None.


8/47

Regional Location Figure 1

City of Ojai

1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication FacilityInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

_

Imagery and Basemap provided by National Geographic Society,

ESRI and its licensors 2013.

PACIFICOCEAN

0 2,0001,000 Feet

Project

Location

_ Project Location


9/47

$+

Grand Ave

L o s

A l a

m o s

D r

GoldenWestAve

DelPradoCt

Sa

nRa

mo

nW

ay

PaseoDelRoblesCt

City of Ojai

Project Location Figure 2

0 200100 FeetImagery provided by ESRI and its licensors 2013.

1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication FacilityInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Project Location

$+ Approximate Tower Location


10/47

Source: Eukon Group, May 2013 Site Plan

1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication Facility

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration


11/47


City of Ojai6

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is Potentially Significant or Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards & HazardousMaterials

Hydrology/WaterQuality Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service

Systems

Mandatory Findings of

Significance


12/47


City of Ojai7

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the

environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in theproject have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact orpotentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at leastone effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant toapplicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures basedon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to beaddressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzedadequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicablestandards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR orNEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that areimposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Ann McLaughlinCity of Ojai Interim Community Development Director Date


13/47


City of Ojai8

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

UnlessMitigation

Incorporated

Less thanSignificant

Impact

No

Impact

I. AESTHETICSWould the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings withina state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visualcharacter or quality of the site and itssurroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area?

a. The parcel containing the project area is generally flat and has been previously disturbed bydevelopment activities. Specifically, the portions of the parcel fronting Grand Avenue havebeen developed as a one-story Lutheran Church and ancillary improvements including apaved parking lot, monument signage, landscaping, shed structures. Above ground power

and telecommunication lines also run parallel to the northern property line within theshoulder of Grand Avenue. The rear portions of the site (which include the proposedproject area) are generally flat, undeveloped, and contain informal landscaping and maturetrees. The project site is visible from Grand Avenue and the surrounding properties.However, these views are obstructed by the existing church structures, the power lines, andthe existing mature trees. Due to the flat condition of the project site combined with theaforementioned view obstructions, it is not considered a scenic vista. The nearest scenicvistas would be the foothills located over 3,000 feet to the north and over 5,000 feet to thesouth. The proposed construction of a 65 ft. telecommunication pole disguised as aeucalyptus tree and the associated shed structure and landscaping would be locatedadjacent to existing mature trees and the existing church structures and thus it would blendin to the surrounding environment (Refer to Appendix A Visual Simulations). Impacts to

scenic vistas would therefore be less than significant.

b. Grand Avenue is not identified as a state scenic highway and the existing Lutheran Churchon the project site is not identified as a local historic resource. Therefore, the proposedproject would substantially damage views from a scenic highway or views of a historicresource.


14/47


City of Ojai9

A total of 16 trees are located on the project site, including nine California sycamore trees,three mulberry trees, two jacaranda trees, and one ash tree. The original location of theproposed conduit trenching would have require the removal of six trees, five of which wereconsidered mature as defined in Title 4 Chapter 11 of the City of Ojai Municipal Code.The six trees requiring removal included the three mulberry trees along the proposed

alignment of the underground utilities and the two jacaranda trees and one sycamore treelocated near the proposed mono-eucalyptus antenna and equipment shelter. The trenchinglocation has since been relocated to the east (as shown on Figure 3) within the existingpaved parking lot, which has resulted in the preservation of the three mulberry trees.However, removal of the two jacaranda trees and the sycamore tree would still be required(refer to Section IV, Biological Resources, for further discussion of potential impacts to trees).View simulations were prepared for the proposed project, which document the projectspotential impact on scenic resources as a result of tree removal and facility construction(included in Appendix C). These simulations confirm that the proposed project and theproposed tree removal would not substantially damage or substantially alter the viewsfrom the various vantage points surrounding the project site (e.g. Grand Avenue, LosAlamos Drive, San Ramon Way, and Paseo Del Robles). Impacts would be less thansignificant.

c. As shown in the visual simulations (Appendix A), the proposed project would slightly alterthe visual character of the project site, as viewed from surrounding properties. However,the project applicant is proposing to construct a wireless telecommunication towerdisguised as a eucalyptus tree near existing mature trees, which would effectivelycamouflage the structure. The proposed installation of landscaping around the visibleportions of the shed structure and the planting of replacement trees near the proposedfacility (see Mitigation Measure BIO-3) would further maintain the sites visual character.Impacts would be less than significant.

d. The proposed project would include the installation of one light fixture above theequipment enclosure door. This light fixture would be pointed down and would beshielded from view by the existing trees/vegetation and the existing church structures. Theproposed wireless antennas could incrementally increase the amount of glare on the projectsite; however, daytime views would not be substantially affected. Light and glare impactswould be less than significant.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES -- In determining whether

impacts to agricultural resources are

significant environmental effects, lead

agencies may refer to the California

Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site


15/47


City of Ojai10

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the

California Dept. of Conservation as an optional

model to use in assessing impacts on

agriculture and farmland. In determining

whether impacts to forest resources, including

timberland, are significant environmental

effects, lead agencies may refer to information

compiled by the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the

states inventory of forest land, including the

Forest and Range Assessment Project and

the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; andforest carbon measurement methodology

provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the

California Air Resources Board. -- Would the

project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Farmland), as shown on the

maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non-

agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural

use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause

rezoning of, forest land (as defined in

Public Resources Code Section

12220(g)), timberland (as defined by

Public Resources Code Section 4526), or

timberland zoned Timberland Production

(as defined by Government Code Section

51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land orconversion of forest land to non-forest

use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of

Farmland, to non-agricultural use?


16/47


City of Ojai11

a-e. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of agricultural uses as theproposed project would be located on a currently developed parcel. The remainingundeveloped portions of site, including the proposed project area, have been previouslydisturbed and the land is not used for agricultural purposes. The California Department of

Conservation (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ven10.pdf)does not

designate the project site as being of prime, state or local importance or unique agriculturalresources. The site is not enrolled in the Williamson Act or directly adjacent to enrolledland. No timber resources are located on-site. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable netincrease of any criteria pollutant for whichthe project region is non-attainment underan applicable federal or state ambient airquality standard (including releasingemissions which exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial number of people?

a. The project site is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is within thejurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). According to theAPCD Guidelines, to be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), aproject must conform to the local general plan and must not result in or contribute to anexceedance of the Citys projected population growth forecast. The proposed project wouldnot generate population growth since it does not include a housing component. The

proposed project would construct a wireless telecommunication facility to improve AT&Tswireless service and would not facilitate new development elsewhere in the City. Theproposed facility would be un-manned and thus would not generate permanentemployment. Therefore, the proposed development would not conflict with or obstructimplementation of the AQMP. No impact would occur.

b-d. Ventura County is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is a non-attainmentarea for the federal and state ozone standards and the state standard for particulate matter(PM-10 and PM-2.5). The Ventura County APCD monitors air quality and provides
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ven10.pdfftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ven10.pdfftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ven10.pdfftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ven10.pdf


17/47


City of Ojai12

regulatory guidance for the region. In 1989, the APCD adopted thresholds for the OjaiValley Airshed for assessing whether a proposed development project would have asignificant adverse impact on air quality. In October 2003, VCAPCD approved updated AirQuality Assessment Guidelines. This document utilizes those guidelines in its assessmentof Air Quality Impacts. The current threshold states that any project located in the Ojai

Valley Clean Air Ordinance area that emits five (5) pounds of reactive organic compounds(ROC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) will individually and cumulatively have a significantadverse impact on air quality.

Construction Related Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would generatetemporary increases in air pollutant emissions due to the use of construction equipment andpotential generation of fugitive dust. There are residential units on adjacent properties,which are considered sensitive receptors. The APCD has not adopted quantitativesignificance thresholds for construction-related emissions since such emissions aretemporary. Grading would not require extensive excavation and would be somewhatlimited in extent, as the site is flat and minimal grading and trenching would be requiredprior to facility construction. Implementation of standard dust and emission controlrequirements would reduce construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.The standard dust abatement mitigation measures typically required as recommended bythe APCD include:

The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shallbe minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded orexcavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application ofwater should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during gradingactivities.

Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shallbe controlled by the following activities:

All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California VehicleCode 23114.

All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of theconstruction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated toprevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilizationmaterials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done asoften as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.

Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by

the CDPH at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such aswater and roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall beperiodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over fourdays. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, thearea shall be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treatedwith environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.

During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust toimpact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation


18/47


City of Ojai13

operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust createdby onsite activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either offsite oronsite. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her discretion inconjunction with the APCD in determining when winds are excessive.

Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end

of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.

Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors,should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with CaliforniaDivision of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.

Operational Impacts: Long-term operational emissions associated with a proposedproject are those associated with vehicle trips and stationary sources (electricity and naturalgas). As discussed above, the VCAPCDs current threshold states that any project locatedin the Ojai Valley Clean Air Ordinance area that emits five pounds of reactive organiccompounds (ROC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day would individually andcumulatively have a significant adverse impact on air quality. However, operation of the

proposed wireless communication facility would not generate any daily vehicle trips andthe proposed back-up diesel generator would only operate temporarily during annualtesting and during power outages. The siting of a back-up diesel generator would requirenew source review by the Ventura County APCD and the issuance of an Authority toConstruct/Permit to Operate prior to its operation. This would ensure that the dieselpowered generator would meet Ventura County standards for stationary emission sources.As such, the proposed project would not exceed VCAPCD thresholds and impacts wouldbeless than significant.

e. No noxious odors would occur as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact


Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, eitherdirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in localor regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fishand Game or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?


19/47


City of Ojai14

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project:

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on anyriparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Gameor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect onfederally protected wetlands as defined bySection 404 of the Clean Water Act

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernalpool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or othermeans?

d) Interfere substantially with the movementof any native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species or with established nativeresident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of native wildlife nurserysites?

e) Conflict with any local policies orordinances protecting biological

resources, such as a tree preservationpolicy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adoptedHabitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or otherapproved local, regional, or state habitatconservation plan?

A Limited Biological Resources Assessment was conducted for the project site by Eukon Groupin July 2013(included in Appendix B). Particular attention was paid to the areas within theproject footprint and the report documented the potential impacts to biological resources as aresult of project construction and operation. The following analysis of biological resources is

based on this Biological Resources Assessment.

a,b,c. Based upon a review of the CNDDB data for the Ojai quadrangle, one federally listedendangered species is known to exist within the Ojai Quad: southern steelhead- southernCalifornia DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). Additionally, two Species of Special Concernare known to exist: southern steelhead and Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicusfemoralis). Eleven special-status, sensitive, and/or special plants are known to occur (Table1). Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa var. racemosa)were also observed on the project site. Although neither of these species is considered


20/47


City of Ojai15

special by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), both oak (Quercus spp.)and sycamore trees are protected within the City of Ojai by Citys Municipal Code, TreePreservation Regulations. No state or federal listed rare, threatened, or endangered plantspecies were identified on the project site.

Table 1Known and Potential Special-Status and Sensitive Species

wi thin the Proposed Project Area

Common

Name Scientific Name

Sensitivity

Code/

Status1

Habitat Preference/

Requirements

Potential

to Occur

on Site

Miles milk-vetch

Astragalusdidymocarpusvar. milesianus

1B.2 Coastal scrub Unlikely

Davidsonssaltscale Atriplex serenanavar. davidsonii 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal Scrub Unlikely

Late-flowered

mariposa lily

Calochortusweedii var.vestus

1B.2

Chaparral, and open, dry sites incismontane and riparian woodland atelevations of 275-1,905 m. Often in

serpentine soil (facultative not obligate).

Unlikely

Plummersmariposa-lily

Calochortusplummerae

4.2Chaparral, cismontane woodland,

riparian woodland, ultramaficUnlikely

Ojai fritillary Fritillaria ojaiensis 1B.2Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,

lower montane coniferous forest.Unlikely

Robinsonspeppergrass

Lepidiumvirginicum var.

robinsonii1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Unlikely

White-veined

monardella

MonardellaHypoleuca ssp.

Hypoleuca1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland Unlikely

Ojainavarretia

Navarretiaojaiensis

1B.1Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and

foothill grasslandUnlikely

SouthernCoast Live

Oak

RiparianForest

None Riparian forest Unlikely

Dulzurapocketmouse

Chaetodipuscalifornicusfemoralis

CDFW SSCChaparral, costal scrub, and valley and

foothill grasslandUnlikely

Hoary BatHorkeliaLasiurus

cinereus

Broadleaved upland forest, cismontanewoodland, lower montane coniferousforest, north coast coniferous forest

Unlikely


21/47


City of Ojai16

Table 1

Known and Potential Special-Status and Sensitive Species

wi thin the Proposed Project Area

Southern

steelhead southernCalifornia

DPS

Oncorhynchusmykiss irideus

FE Aquatic, south coast flowing waters Unlikely

1Notes:

Federal Status (USFWS): State Status (CDFW):FE Federally Endangered SSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Concern

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List:1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere4 Limited distribution (Watch list)0.1 Seriously endangered in California0.2 Fairly endangered in California

The project site consists of a graded, vacant field and is located near areas of the sitedeveloped with previously permitted church buildings. The surrounding area is urban andis developed with single family residential uses. The only potential habitat on-site includesthe mature trees, which could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. However, nonesting birds were observed during field observations. Therefore, the proposed projectwould not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitatmodifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species inlocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish andWildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, because no listed species are known or expectedto occur at the project site. No impact would occur.

The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed, and the project site does notcontain any wetland or riparian resources (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html). Field surveys performed by The Eukon Group and Rincon Consultants, Inc.also confirmed this condition. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur.

San Antonia Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet to the east-southeast of the projectsite. This physical separation would ensure that the proposed project would not directlyremove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt this waterway. Moreover, the proposed projectwould not require substantial grading or drainage improvements that could re-direct or

increase stormwater flow volumes or contribute to increased sedimentation rates into thisjurisdictional waterway. No impact would occur.

d. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat orother sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,because project development would occur within an area totaling approximately 350 squarefeet which does not contain any of the above referenced biological habitats. The absence of
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html


22/47


City of Ojai17

such plant and animal species were confirmed by the Eukon Group during a site surveyperformed on May 7, 2013. Impacts on sensitive plant and animal species would be lessthan significant.

The project site is surrounded by urban development and does not contain native habitats

conducive to wildlife movement.In 2005, the South Coast Missing Linkages Projectproposed the Castaic-Sierra Madre Landscape Linkage, which links areas surrounding theCity of Ojai. The northern branch of this linkage follows Kennedy and Cozy Dell Canyonsacross Highway 33, while the southern branch crosses Highway 33 south of the communityof Oak View to Sulphur Mountain. These paths converge and follow Santa Paula Ridge,through portions of Pine Canyon, over Angels Pass, to I-5. Although nearby, the project siteis not located within this mapped wildlife linkage area (City of Ojai Housing ElementUpdate EIR 2009). No impacts on wildlife movement corridors would occur.

The proposed project would require tree removal, which could impact nesting birdsprotected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Although no nesting birds were identifiedduring the tree survey performed on August 21, 2013 (Davey Resource Group 2013), there isthe potential for nesting birds to existing within the trees proposed for removal dependingon the construction timeframe. Impacts would be potentially significant.

e. The potential impacts to on-site trees were assessed as part of an Arborist Report preparedby Davey Resource Group dated August 30, 2013 (included as Appendix C). In summary,sixteen trees were surveyed within the vicinity of the project area, with the majority of theon-site trees concentrated outside of the proposed project area. Eight existing Californiasycamore trees (Tree No.s 1-8) are located within small cut-outs in the asphalt parking lotarea east of the church building. Three mulberry trees (Tree No.s 9-11) are located in non-irrigated lawn areas adjacent to the eastern side of the church building. The five remainingtrees (Tree No.s 12-16) consist of two jacaranda, one California sycamore, one ash, and one

coast live oak. They are located in the non-irrigated field south of the church building nearthe project development area.

Based upon review of the proposed development plans, the proposed utility line trenchingand the construction of the wireless communication facility would require the removal oftree No.s 12-14, which would include two jacaranda trees, and one California sycamoretree. Table 2 below describes the characteristics of each tree proposed for removal.

Table 2. Proposed Tree Removals

Tree No. SpeciesDiameter at

Breast HeightEst. Tree Height

12 Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 10 inches 30 feet

13 California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) 16 inches 40 feet

14 Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 11 inches 35 feet

The Citys Tree Preservation Regulations require the issuance of a Tree Permit prior to: (1)removing, cutting down, destroying or relocating any oak or a sycamore, heritage or maturetree; (2) trenching, grading, filling, compacting or placing construction material of any type


23/47


City of Ojai18

in the drip line of an oak or a sycamore, mature or heritage tree; and (3) pruning live limbsover four (4) inches in diameter of an oak or a sycamore or heritage tree.Therefore, theproposed removal of the three trees would require review and approval of a Tree Permit bythe Planning Director. The Citys Municipal Code recognizes oak, sycamore, heritage andother mature trees as significant historical, aesthetic and ecological resources and thus

the impacts associated with the proposed tree removals would be potentially significant.

f. The proposed project would be located on a previously developed site that is not subject toan adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or otherapproved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (City of Ojai Housing ElementUpdate EIR 2009). No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts tonesting birds and on-site protected trees to a less than significant level.

BIO-1 Nesting Birds. To avoid the accidental impact of any migratory birdspecies or raptors, the removal or pruning of trees shall be conductedbetween September 15 and February 1, outside of the typical breedingseason, as feasible. Should avoidance of the nesting season not befeasible, a qualified biologist/ornithologist shall conduct focusednesting surveys once per week for 30 days prior to grading or initialconstruction activity. The last survey shall be conducted no more than3 days prior to the start of vegetation clearing activities. Should noactive nests be found then no further mitigation would be required.Should active nests be found, then avoidance of the nest site with a 50to 300 foot (potentially up to 500 feet for raptors) non-disturbance

buffer zone would be adequate to avoid take. If active nests are found,the California Department of Public Health and CDFG would becontacted to verify the need for and distance of the non-disturbancebuffer zone. The buffer zone area would not be encroached into byconstruction work until such time that nesting is completed and theyoung have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.

Once the pre-construction bird surveys are conducted by a qualifiedbiologist during the proper seasons, the report results, including surveydates, exact species observed and location of species onsite, shall besubmitted to the California Department of Public Health and other

necessary regulatory agencies.

BIO-2 Obtain Tree Permit. If determined to be necessary based upon finalconstruction plans, a Ministerial Tree Permit would be obtained for thethinning, removal, or encroachment impacts to protected trees. APermit would be issued by the City of Ojai Planning Department. Thepermit shall be received prior to the start of construction.


24/47


City of Ojai19

BIO-3 Protected Tree Avoidance and Tree Removal Replacement. Thelocation of utility trenching shall be re-routed to avoid removal of TreeNo.s 12, 13. If utility trench re-routing is not feasible, then impacts toprotected trees shall be minimized by planting one 24-inch box

jacaranda and one 24-inch box California sycamore on-site as part of

the proposed landscaping plan. The final location of the additionaltrees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community DevelopmentDirector prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant shallplant one 24-inch box jacaranda tree as part of the proposedlandscaping plan to mitigate impacts associated with the removal ofTree No. 14. The final location of this tree shall be reviewed andapproved by the Community Development Director prior to theissuance of building permits.

BIO-4 Existing Tree Preservation Specifications. The project shallincorporate all tree preservation specifications listed in the TreeProtection Plan (Sheet LJ-1) prepared Davey Resources Group as part oftheir Arborist Report dated August 31, 2013. The City shall conductperiod inspections during construction to ensure compliance with thesemeasures.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of a historical resource asdefined in 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of an archaeologicalresource as defined in 15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site or uniquegeologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including

those interred outside of formalcemeteries?

The following analysis is partially based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Record Search andSite Visit Results Report, which was prepared by Diane F. Bonner, Geoarchaeologist in October2013. The entire archaeological study is contained in Appendix D of this report.

a,b,d. The archaeological resources records search involved a review of all previously recordedpre-historic and historic archeological sites within a half-mile radius of the project site, and


25/47


City of Ojai20

a review of all cultural resource survey or excavation reports. This records search wasconducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), California StateUniversity Fullerton on May 30, 2013. To identify potential historic resources, theCalifornia Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for Ventura County, the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP), the California Historic Landmarks (CHL), and the California Points

of Historical Interest (CPHI) databases were reviewed. The search results indicated:

1. Two prehistoric cultural resources are recorded approximately 1,400 feet away from theproject site.

2. No historic cultural resources are recorded within mile of the project site.3. Three historic properties are recorded within a mile of the project site and none are

eligible for National Register listing.4. No National Register properties are recorded within mile of the project site.5. No significant historical resources are located within mile of the project site.6. Thirteen survey or excavation reports were filed for projects within mile of the project

site and none of these reports identified resources on the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect cultural or historic resources asnone are located on or within mile of the project site. Impacts related to cultural andhistoric resources would be less than significant.

c. The installation of water, telecommunication, and electrical conduit would require newsubsurface trenching and the new wireless communication facility would require theestablishment of concrete footings below grade and an at-grade concrete foundation tosupport the equipment shed. This would require an area of ground disturbance totalingapproximately 350 square feet. However, the proposed ground disturbance would occur on aproject site that has previously been disturbed and a site that is surrounded on all sides byurban development. Impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources would

therefore be less than significant.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including therisk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the StateGeologist for the area or based onother substantial evidence of a knownfault?


26/47


City of Ojai21

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or theloss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-sitelandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined inTable 1-B of the Uniform Building Code,creating substantial risks to life orproperty?

e) Have soils incapable of adequatelysupporting the use of septic tanks oralternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for the

disposal of wastewater?

a.i-iv. The proposed project involves the installation of new subsurface water,telecommunication, and electrical conduit, the construction of a wireless communicationtower, and equipment shed. The project would not construct any habitable structures andis not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone or other known fault zone (Alquist-PrioloEarthquake Fault Zoning Act, January 2000;http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/ ).Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Like much of Southern California, the project site could experience seismic ground shakingin the event of an earthquake. The proposed project, including the wireless communicationtower and equipment shed would be constructed to withstand potential peak accelerations

onsite, as defined by the California Building Code (CBC) and Universal Building Code(UBC). Adherence to standards in the CBC and UBC would ensure impacts from groundshaking would be less than significant.

The project site is not within a State-identified liquefaction hazard zone (CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation, 2003;http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/ ). Nevertheless,there is the potential for liquefaction to occur onsite depending on site-specific soilconditions. However, because the project would be required to adhere to CBC and UBC
http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/


27/47


City of Ojai22

standards which address liquefaction hazards, impacts related to liquefaction would beless than significant.

The topography of the project is flat and thus it is outside of any earthquake induced landslidehazard areas as delineated by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines

and Geology (Ventura County General Plan, 2005,http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/).There is no evidence of previous landslides onsite and the proposed project would notconstruct habitable structures and thus would not expose people or structures to a substantiallandslide hazard risk. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b. During construction of the proposed project, soil disturbance activities could expose topsoilto the forces or erosion by wind or water. However, standard dust control measures, asdescribed in Section III,Air Quality, and mandatory compliance with the Citys MunicipalCode (Title 5, Chapter 12), which requires that development be undertaken in accordancewith conditions and requirements established by the Ventura Countywide StormwaterQuality Management Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit No. CAS063339 and the Ventura Stormwater Quality Management Ordinance No.4142 would reduce impacts related to erosion to a less than significant level.

c. The project site is not within a State identified liquefaction hazard zone (CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation, 2003;http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/ ). The projectwould be required to adhere to CBC and UBC standards that address the potential forsoil instability and thus impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.

d. Expansive soils are known to exist in the City of Ojai. The resources most often affected byexpansive soils are unequally loaded structures and rigid flatwork (Ventura CountyGeneral Plan, Hazards Appendix, 2005). However, the proposed wireless communicationfacility would be constructed in a flat area where the existing church structures do not show

any evidence of having been affected by expansive soils and the aerial extent of flat workwould be limited to a 350 square foot area. Furthermore, the proposed project would berequired to comply with CBC and UBC standards which address hazards associated withexpansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

e. The project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or other wastewaterdisposal systems. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that may havea significant impact on the environment?
http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/


28/47


City of Ojai23

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -Would the project:

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, orregulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhousegases?

a, b. As discussed in Section II, Air Quality, the project would not generate construction-relatedair pollutant emissions that have the potential to exceed established air quality thresholds. Noregular traffic would be generated by operation of the proposed facility other than the trafficnecessary to complete periodic facility maintenance. Although the traffic associated with

periodic maintenance activities and the periodic operation of the proposed on-site dieselgenerator could generate minor quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through theburning of fossil fuels or other emissions of GHGs, the operational GHG emissions for theproject would be a small fraction of the SCAQMDs greenhouse gas threshold of 10,000 metrictons per year (SCAQMD, Proposed Tier 3 Screening Levels Commercial/Industrial Projects,September 2010). Impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS - Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditionsinvolving the release of hazardousmaterials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handlehazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within mile of anexisting or proposed school?


29/47


City of Ojai24

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS - Would the project:

d) Be located on a site which is included on alist of hazardous material sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section65962.5 and, as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public or theenvironment?

e) For a project located within an airport landuse plan or, where such a plan has notbeen adopted, within two miles of a public

airport or public use airport, would theproject result in a safety hazard for peopleresiding or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a privateairstrip, would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working inthe project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physicallyinterfere with an adopted emergencyresponse plan or emergency evacuationplan?

h) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanized areasor where residences are intermixed withwildlands?

a. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new wireless communicationfacility and ancillary wet and dry utility infrastructure. The proposed facility would beunmanned, except during the brief periods of maintenance and therefore would not involvethe routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous substances, other than the minoramounts of fuel or other industrial chemicals typically used for facility maintenance.Impacts would be less than significant.

b. There is no evidence of hazardous materials on the project site (Rincon Consultants, sitereconnaissance completed on November 25, 2013). However, operation of the facilitywould emit RF radiation, which has been identified as a possible linkto cancer and otherillnesses (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns). Theproposed facility would operate within ATT Mobilitys FCC licensed frequencies and theFederal Communications Commission (FCC) states that the maximum permissible exposurefrom RF radiation for the general population is between 0.6 and 1 milliwatts per centimeter


30/47


City of Ojai25

squared (mW/cm2) depending on the frequency of the transmitter (47 CFR 1.1310). Theproposed antenna is designed to transmit most of the signal in a horizontal direction(parallel to the ground) in order to provide a usable wireless signal around the site. Whenthe RF energy reaches the ground level, its energy would be reduced to 1/5,000thof apercent of the maximum permissible exposure level (Telnet Engineers 2013). These patterns

are based upon the typical antenna patterns emitted from ATT antennas. Moreover, theproposed wireless communication facility would be located at least 190 feet away from thenearest residential backyards, which would further reduce the signal strength at potentialreceptor locations. Impacts would be less than significant.

c. As stated above, there would be no hazardous materials, substances, or waste associatedwith project development other than those typically used for routine maintenance. Theclosest school is the Topa Topa Elementary School, located approximately 2,000 feetnorthwest of the project site. No impact would occur.

d. The project site does not appear on any hazardous material site list compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5. The following databases were checked (November 23,2013) for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System(CERCLIS) database;

Geotracker search for leaking underground fuel tanks;

Investigations- Cleanups (SLIC) and Landfill sites, Cortese list of Hazardous Waste andSubstances Sites; and

The Department of Toxic Substances Controls Site Mitigation and Brownfields Database.

The project site does not appear on any of the above lists. No impact would occur.

e, f. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airport. No impactwould occur.

g. The proposed project would not modify any existing access routes into the project site.Therefore, project implementation would not impede the ability for emergency vehicles toaccess the existing church use or the project area. No impact would occur.

h. The project site is listed not by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection asan Undesignated Area (Ventura County General Plan, 2005). The proposed project wouldnot include any new residential dwellings and would be unoccupied. However, theintroduction of outdoor wireless communication equipment, its associated electrical

infrastructure, and the proposed back-up diesel powered generator could increase the riskof fire in the event of equipment malfunction. This potential fire risk would be adequatelyoffset by the installation of irrigation lines to the exterior portions of the project area, theestablishment of a clear area in and around the 350 square foot lease area, and suitable fireaccess. Impacts would be less than significant.


31/47


City of Ojai26

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards orwaste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwatersupplies or interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering or the local groundwater tablelevel (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level

which would not support existing landuses or planned uses for which permitshave been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of astream or river, in a manner which wouldresult in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, including thealteration of the course of a stream or

river, or substantially increase the rate oramount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water whichwould exceed the capacity of existing orplanned stormwater drainage systems orprovide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood

hazard area as mapped on a federalFlood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazarddelineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard areastructures which would impede or redirectflood flows?


32/47


City of Ojai27

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

i) Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding as aresult of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow?

a, c-f. The proposed project involves the installation of a wireless communication facility

within a 350 sq. ft. lease area. The proposed shed structure and wireless facility towerwould require the construction of a concrete pad which would incrementally increase theamount of impervious surface area onsite; however, the proposed improvements would besurrounded by permeable soils and natural vegetation which would absorb any incrementalincrease in stormwater runoff volumes. No substantial change in soil infiltration rates,drainage patterns or the amount of runoff would occur at buildout of the project. Impactswould be less than significant.

During construction of the project, trenching and minor grading would temporarily createthe potential for increased erosion and siltation. However, the proposed project would berequired to adhere to the provisions of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater QualityManagement Program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit No. CAS063339, City of Ojai Municipal Code SectionsSec. 5-12.101 et. seq. Theseregulations require the establishment of Best Management Practices (BMPs) duringconstruction to reduce potential impacts to water quality caused by erosion and siltation.Compliance with mandatory storm water quality protection programs would reduceimpacts to a less than significant level.

b. The proposed improvements would increase the amount of impervious surface area onsiteby approximately 350 sq. ft. Stormwater and irrigation water would continue to infiltratethe disturbed but pervious soils surrounding the project area. No impacts on groundwaterrecharge would occur.

g-j. The project site does not include the construction of housing, nor would the project changea drainage pattern such that existing housing would be subject to flood hazards. Theproject site is not located in either the 100 or 500 year flood plain (Ventura County GeneralPlan Hazards Appendix, 2005; FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Program andVentura County Watershed Protection District). The project site is in Flood Zone X, whichindicates that there is minimal risk of flooding (FEMA Panel No. 06111C0578E). Inaddition, the project is of sufficient distance from the coast to preclude risk of seiche ortsunami, and not in proximity to areas subject to mudflows. No impact would occur.


33/47


City of Ojai28


Impact

Potentially

Significant

UnlessMitigation

Incorporated

Less thanSignificant

Impact

No

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING --Would the proposal:

a) Physically divide an establishedcommunity?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project (including, butnot limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding ormitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with an applicable habitatconservation plan or natural communityconservation plan?

a. No residences are located on the project site. The proposed facility would not divide anestablished community. No impact would occur.

b. The project site has a General Plan land use designations of Public-Quasi Public. The

proposed installation of a wireless communication facility would not conflict with the landuse designation or the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses within the Publiczoning district. In accordance with Section 10-2.1712 of the City of Ojai Municipal Code, theproposed wireless communication facility shall be developed, located, and operated inmanner consistent with the applicable standards contained therein. What follows is adetermination of consistency with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.

Sections 10-2.1712 (b)(1)(A-F) These sections establish guidelines for the siting of antennasand towers, which generally encourage the location of towers in nonresidential areas andstrongly encourage the co-location at new and existing tower sites in order to reduce anyadverse impacts on the community. In addition, this section also encourages theconfiguration of towers in a way that minimizes their adverse visual impact.

Consistency Statement: Although the proposed project would not co-locate the proposedantennas on an existing wireless communication tower, it proposes to locate the tower on aparcel currently zoned for a non-residential use and a site currently developed withnumerous church structures. The location of the tower is proposed in location that would besetback from existing residential uses by at least 190 feet and the tower would be disguisedas a eucalyptus tree and surrounded by existing and proposed natural vegetation. Thiswould reduce any adverse impacts on the surrounding residential community and would


34/47


City of Ojai29

reduce the visual impacts of the facility. The project is consistent with the above-referencedMunicipal Code Section.Sections 10-2.1712 (b)(2)(A-D) These code sections require each applicant to inventory allexisting and planned towers that are either within the jurisdiction of the City, or visiblefrom the border of the City, including specific information about the actual or proposed

location, height, and design of each tower.

Consistency Statement:The project applicant provided an inventory of all existing andplanned wireless communication within the City and beyond. Currently, there is oneexisting 77-ft. tall wireless communication tower in the City located at 1116 MaricopaHighway. This facility was recently expanded to include additional antennas as part of aco-location request and is disguised as a pine tree to reduce impacts on visual resources.The other facility closest to the City limits (within 0.5 miles) is located at 12540 Creek Roadin the Mira Monte area of unincorporated Ventura County. This facility is 55 feet tall. Theproposed wireless communication facility would blend into the surrounding natural andbuilt environment and would enhance wireless communication services in the City of Ojai,which are currently underserved based upon the overall population density and wirelesscommunication service demand pool. The project is consistent with the above-referencedMunicipal Code Section.

Sections 10-2.1712 (b)(3)(A-K) These code sections establish the overall design standards fortowers and antennas and generally require: a finish that will reduce its visual obtrusiveness,a design that blends with the natural setting and built environment, any supportingequipment shall be compatible in color with existing structures nearby, no artificial lightingof the tower, not located on ridge lines or hilltops, a minimum 100 ft. setback from any off-site residential structure, and not exceeding 65 feet in height.

Consistency Statement:The proposed wireless communication facility would be disguised as

a eucalyptus trees and would be surrounded by landscaping that would blend in with thesurrounding natural and built environment. The proposed equipment shed would bepainted to match the existing colors of the adjacent Lutheran church and landscaping isproposed around the equipment shed to effectively screen the structure. No artificiallighting is proposed on the tower portions of the facility and the facility would be setback atleast 190 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. The tower portion of the facility wouldbe 65 feet in height, which is consistent with the Citys height limitation. Therefore, theproject is consistent with the above referenced code sections.

The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable Municipal Code provisionsand thus impacts would be less than significant.

c. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans are applicable to thesubject site or project. No impact would occur.


35/47


City of Ojai30

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a knownmineral resource that would be of value tothe region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan, specificplan, or other land use plan?

a, b. The project site is not located in a mineral resource area on the Countys ResourceProtection Map, 2008), indicating the absence of known mineral resources. The projectwould not result in the loss of any known mineral resources. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XII. NOISE Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation ofnoise levels in excess of standardsestablished in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, or applicable standardsof other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation ofexcessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in

ambient noise levels above levels existingwithout the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodicincrease in ambient noise levels in theproject vicinity above levels existingwithout the project?


36/47


City of Ojai31

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XII. NOISE Would the project result in:

e) For a project located within an airport landuse plan or, where such a plan has notbeen adopted, within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport, would theproject expose people residing or workingin the project area to excessive noiselevels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a privateairstrip, would the project expose peopleresiding or working in the project area to

excessive noise?

General Characteristics and Regulation of Noise. The duration of noise and the time periodat which it occurs are important factors in determining the impact of noise on sensitive landuses. Noise is more disturbing at night than during the day and noise indices have beendeveloped to account for the varying duration of noise events over time as well ascommunity response to them. The Community Noise Level Equivalent (CNEL) and theDay-Night Average Level (DNL or Ldn) are such indices. They are time-weighted averagevalues based on the equivalent sound level (Leq), which is a constant sound level thatequals the same amount of acoustic energy as actual time-varying sound over a particularperiod. The CNEL penalizes noise levels during the night (10 pm to 7 am) by 10 dB to

account for the increased sensitivity of people to noise after dark. Evening noise levels (7pm to 10 pm) are penalized 5 dB by the CNEL. Appropriately weighted hourly noisemeasurements are then combined over a 24-hour period to result in a CNEL. The Ldn alsopenalizes nighttime noise levels, but does not penalize evening levels. These two indicesare generally equivalent.

In general, the CNEL may be thought qualitatively as an accumulation of the noiseassociated with individual events occurring throughout a 24-hour period. The noise of eachindividual event is accounted for in a separate, discrete measurement that integrates thechanging sound level over time as, for example, when an aircraft approaches, fliesoverhead, then continues off into the distance. These integrated sound levels for individualoperations are referred to as Sound Exposure Levels or SELs. The accumulation of the SELsfrom each individual operation during a 24-hour period determines the CNEL for the day.To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically significant noise levels,the State of California, various County governments, and most cites in the state haveestablished guidelines and ordinances to control noise. Based upon the City of Ojai GeneralPlan, an exterior noise level of 60 to 65 dBA CNEL is considered normally acceptable forresidential uses. A noise level of 70 dBA CNEL is considered to be conditionallyacceptable and a noise level of greater than 75 dBA CNEL is considered clearlyunacceptable for residences. The 70 dBA CNEL noise level is considered to be the upper


37/47


City of Ojai32

limit of normally acceptable noise levels for other sensitive uses such as schools, libraries,hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and parks. These noise criteria are based upon theCalifornia Office of Noise Control land use compatibility guidelines.

To determine if the proposed project would generate noise that exceeds these standards, the

existing noise environment was characterized by physically taking noise measurements onthe project site. Using these noise measurements as a baseline, both construction andoperational noise was estimated using industry accepted noise values for constructionequipment, and typical manufacturers specified noise levels associated with the operationof the wireless communication equipment. The distance to nearby sensitive receptors alongwith any noise attenuation elements were then considered in order to determine potentialnoise levels at nearby sensitive receptors (e.g. the residential dwellings located west, eastand south of the project site). Traffic related noise was not considered as part of thisanalysis, as the proposed wireless communication facility would be un-manned and wouldtherefore not generate regular vehicle trips.

a,b,d. Three noise measurements were taken on and near the project site on November 25, 2013.The results of the noise measurements are summarized in Table 3. Measured Leq ranged from42.1 to 63.2 dBA. All measurements were taken mid-day and do not reflect the likely highestnoise levels onsite that would be expected to occur during peak traffic periods.

Table 3

Noise Measurement Results

Location

Measured Ambient Noise

(dBA)

Leqa Lmax

1. Approximate center of project site near Grand Avenue(Approx. 21 feet from Grand Avenue centerline)

63.2 82.3

2. Approximate center of eastern site boundary 47.8 66.9

3. Approximate center of western site boundary 42.1 55.5

All measurements were conducted for 20 minutes using an integrating sound level meter.aLeq is essentially the average sound level over the measurement period.

bLmax is the maximum sound level over the measurement period.

Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase noise in the vicinity of the

project site. Construction noise threshold criteria are provided in the City of Ojai MunicipalCode and are presented below.

Table 4 below summarizes Section 5-11.04 of the Ojai Municipal Code, which sets theexterior noise level standards for the City of Ojai.
http://library.municode.com/HTML/16536/level2/TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE.html#TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE_S5-11.04NOSTLIhttp://library.municode.com/HTML/16536/level2/TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE.html#TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE_S5-11.04NOSTLI


38/47


City of Ojai33

Table 4

Summary of Exterior Noise Standards

Zone Time Period Noise Level (dB)

Residential Zone (IncludesVillage Mixed Use)

7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55

10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 45

Commercial/Industrial Zone

7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 65

10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 55

Section 5-11.05(c) of the Ojai Municipal Code restricts noise generating constructionactivities in the City as follows:

Construction. Any person who operates powered construction equipment, erects,constructs, demolishes, excavates for, alters or repairs any building or structure within theCity in such a manner as to cause noise to be received by any person beyond theboundaries of the property on which the construction work is occurring shall comply withthe following:

1. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. onweekdays. Construction activities authorized by a valid City permit may, aswarranted by the project, exceed the noise level limits of Section 5-11.04 on atemporary and short-term basis during the authorized construction hours, asdetermined appropriate and necessary by the Community DevelopmentDirector.

2. No construction work shall be performed on weekends or City holidays.3. All construction equipment shall be operated with the standard factory silencerand/or muffler equipment attached and maintained in good working order.

Project-Generated Construction Noise. Temporary construction noise would be generated bythe installation of the new sub-surface telecommunication, electrical and irrigation lines,building pad preparation, and the assembly of the mono-pole and equipment shed. Table 5shows typical noise levels at construction sites at an average distance of 50 feet from the noisesource. Noise levels generally range from about 78-88 dBA at 50 feet from the noise sourceduring peak construction activity. The nearest sensitive receptor is the single-gamily residencelocated approximately 190 feet west of the project area. The maximum temporaryconstruction-related noise at this most affected location could range from approximately 66-76

dBA, as noise levels generally attenuate by 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance. Suchlevels would be expected to occur intermittently for no more than a few weeks duringconstruction. Due to the Citys restriction of construction activities to daytime periods,weekends, and holidays, the temporary construction noise would not exceed the applicableCity thresholds.Impacts would be less than significant.
http://library.municode.com/HTML/16536/level2/TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE.html#TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE_S5-11.04NOSTLIhttp://library.municode.com/HTML/16536/level2/TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE.html#TIT5SAHE_CH11NOSTRE_S5-11.04NOSTLI


39/47


City of Ojai34

Table 5

Typical Noise Levels at Construction Sites

Construction Phase

Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet

Minimum RequiredEquipment Onsite All Pert inentEquipment Onsite

Clearing 84 dBA 84 dBA

Excavation 78 dBA 88 dBA

Foundation/Conditioning 88 dBA 88 dBA

Laying Subbase, Paving 78 dBA 79 dBA

Finishing and Cleanup 84 dBA 84 dBA

Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment andOperations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.

No pile driving equipment or other construction equipment capable of generating significantgroundborne vibration would be utilized during construction. Therefore, vibration impactswould be less than significant.

Project Generated Operational Noise - Operational noise generated by the proposed wirelesscom

1290 grand avenue is

Documents