county of ventura - docs.vcrma.org · three sectors for a total oi 12 antennas). each sector will...

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning DivisionKimberly L. Prillhart

Directorcounty of venturaAV

3. Location: 100 Conifer Circle, Oak Park

4. Assessor's Parcel No.: 800-0-400-025

5. Parcel Size: O.32 acres

TE ADOPT

sËP 2 5 ¡0t7 PosrED

srhpkË#plk- - I

Ventura tcuntY Clerk and Recorder

#, DePutY

ANDD N

The county of Ventura, Resource Management Agency (RMA), Planning Division, as

the Lead Agency, has reviewed the following project:

1. Entiilement: conditional use Permit No. PL15-0163

2. Applicant: Verizon Wireless

,

By:

6. General Plan Designation: Open Space

7. Zoninq Desiqnation: open Space 4o.acre minimum

8. Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies: None

g. proiect Description: The applicant requests that a conditional use permit (CUP)

@rizetlreconstructionofaneWwirelesscommunicationsfacility with an antenna structure designed as a faux elm tree (monoelm). The

monoelm will be a maximum of 36 feet tall including 32 Jeet of structure and an

additional 4 feet of faux foliage. The monoelm will have four antennas in each of

three sectors for a total oi 12 antennas). Each sector will have equipment

[remote radio units (RRUs) and raycaps] mounted behind the antennas. The

iacility equipment wilibe located in a 42O-square foot area enclosed by a seven'

foot tall chainlink fence. The equipment area will contain two ground mounted

equipment cabinets and an emergency generator with a S4-gallon diesel fuel

tank.

ln accordance with Section 15070 of the California Code of Regulations, the Ventura

County Planning Division has determined that the proposed PfolecJ will not have a

s¡gnifióant effecion the environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.

800 South Victoria Avenue, L# 1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (S05) 654-24E1 Fax (805) 654-2509

@ Pñnted on Recycled Paqer

ThepublicreviewperiodisfromSeptember.26,20lT'toOctober26'20'17'ThelnitialStudy/Negative bechration ¡s---ãva¡¡able for public review on-line at

www.ventura.org/rma/planning (select'cgon Environmental Review") or at the county

of Ventura, RMA, Planning o¡v¡s¡oñ, go0 south Victoria Avenue' Ventura' Califomia

from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday ïnt*gh Fridg.V' The public is encouraged to submit

written comments-õ]ãt Dobrowäl;kì' ;ó later tñan 5:00 p'm' on october 26' 2017 lo

the address listed "Louå.

AffiemativËly, yot1.[aV f3x your comments to (805) 654-2509

or e-mail the case planner at jay'dobrowalski@ventura'org'

/-zî-/7Date

rian Baca, ManagerCommercial/l nd ustrial Permits Section

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

county of venturaPlanning Division

Kimberly L. PrillhartDirector

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Entitlement: Conditional Use Permit No. PL15-0163

Applicant: Verizon Wireless

Location: 100 Conifer CÍrcle, Oak Park

Assessor's Parcel No.: 800-0-400-025

Parcel Size: 0.32 acres

General Plan Desisnation: Open Space

Existins Zoning: Open Space 4O-acre minimum

Responsible and/or Trustee Aqencies: None

Proiect Description: The applicant requests that a conditional use permit (CUP)be granted to authorize the construction of a new wireless communicationsfacility with an antenna structure designed as a faux elm tree (monoelm). Themonoelm will be a maximum of 36 feet tall including 32 feet of structure and anadditional 4 feet of faux foliage. The monoelm will have four antennas in each ofthree sectors for a total of 12 antennas). Each sector will have equipment[remote radio units (RRUs) and raycaps] möunted behind the antennas. Thefacility equipment will be located in a 42O-square foot area enclosed by a seven-foot tall chainlink fence. The equipment area will contain two ground mountedequipment cabinets and an emergency generator with a 54-gallon diesel fueltank.

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:State law requires the Resource Management Agency (RMA), Planning Division,as the lead agency for the proposed project, to prepare an lnitial Study(environmental analysis) to determine if the proposed project could significantlyaffect the environment. Based on the findings contained in the attached InitialStudy, ¡t has been determined that the proposed project will not have asignificant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration has beenprepared.

800 South Victoria Avenue, L# 1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654-2481 Fax (805) 654-2509

Printed on Recycled Paper

B

@ {I/r\" (\

c PUBLIG REVIEW:

Leqal Notice Method: Direct mailing to property. owners within 300 feet of

@ary, and a legal notice in the Ventura County Star.

Document Postinq Period: September 26,2017 through october 26,2017

public Review: The lnitial Study/Negative Declaration is available for public

rerriew on-i¡ne at www.ventura.org/rma/planning (select "CEQA Environmental

Ceview") or at the County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, Planning

Department, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California from 8:00 am to

5:00 pm MondaY through FridaY.

Gomments: The public is encouraged to submit written comments regarding

iñls l. tudy/Negative Declaration no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day of

the document posäng period to the case planner, October 26, 2017, at the

County of Ventura, RÑ¡Á, Planning Division, 800 South Victoria Avenue L#1740,

Ventuia, CA 9300é. The Planning Division's FAX number is (805) 654-2509. You

may also e-mail the case planner at [email protected]'

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION:

Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency

must consider tniJ Negaiivé Declaration and all comments received during public

review. That body stiall approve the Negative Declaration if it finds that the

project will not have a significant effect on the environment'

D

Prepared by: for Release the Public by:

ì

(browalski, Case Planner54-2498

Brian Baca, ManagerCommercial/l ndustrial Permits Section

2.

3.

Gounty of Ventura Planning Division800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 . (805) 654-2488 . http://www.ventura.org/rma/plann¡ng

INITIAL STUDYfor

VERIZON WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITYCase No. PL15-0163

Section A - Project Description

'1. Project Case Number: PL15-0163

Name of Applicant: Adrian Culici, representing Verizon Wireless

Project Location and Assessor's Parcel Numbers: The project site is theformer location of a municipal water tank upon which two wirelesscommunication facilities were mounted. The tank was removed and the twoexisting communications facilities were redesigned as faux elm trees. This site islocated on a hill south of Conifer Street (Attachment 1, Project Location). Theproject site is identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 800-0-400-025.

4. General PIan Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation of the ProjectSite:

General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space

Oak Park Area Plan Land Use Designation: Public Open Space

Zoning Designation: Open Space 40-acre minimum

Description of the Environmental Setting: The proposed project site is a levelarea located on a hillside that was formerly developed with a municipal watertank. This site is currently developed with two wireless communication facilitieswith antenna towers designed as faux elm trees. When the two existing facilitieswere constructed, nearby non-native vegetation was removed and replaced withnative vegetation. The site is generally at a higher elevation than the surroundingterrain. The hillside site is visible from the nearby streets in the Oak Park area.

Project Description: The applicant requests that a conditional use permit(CUP) be granted to authorize the construction of a new wirelesscommunications facility with an antenna structure designed as a faux elm tree(monoelm). The monoelm will be a maximum of 36 feet tall including 32 feet ofstructure and an additional 4 feet of faux foliage. The monoelm will have fourantennas in each of three sectors for a total of 12 antennas). Each sector willhave equipment [remote radio units (RRUs) and raycaps] mounted behind the

a.

b.

G.

5.

6

7

I

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL15-0163lnitial Study

Page 2 of 72

antennas. The facility equipment will be located in a 420-square foot areaenclosed by a seven-foot tall chainlink fence. The equipment area will containtwo ground mounted equipment cabinets and an emergency generator with a 54-gallon diesel fuel tank (Attachment 2, Project Plans).

List of Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None

Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative lmpacts: To evaluate the cumulativeimpacts of the proposed project, the following pending and recently approvedprojects located within a five-mile radius of the proposed project have beenevaluated:

iII

Permit Type DescriptionPermit GaseNo.

LU16-0165 CUP Continued use of existinq communications facilityPL16-0059 CUP Construction of new communications facilitvPL17-0079 CUP Redesiqn and continued use of existinq park

2


Page 3 of 72

Section B - lnitial Study Checklist and Discussion of Responsesl

lmpact Discussion:

1a.Based on information provided by the applicant, air quality impacts will be below the 25pounds per day threshold for reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen asdescribed in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, theproject will not have a significant impact on regional air quality.

Based on information in the project application, the subject project will generate local airquality impacts but those impacts are not likely to be significant.

1b.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 1 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines, specifically Section 1.2, AirQuality (Sections 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). The project is consistent with the VenturaCounty Air Quality Management Plan.

Mitigation/Residual lmpact(s)

lThe threshold criteria in this lnitial Study are derived from the Ventura County lnitial Study AssessmenfGuidelines (April 26, 2011). For additional information on the threshold criteria (e.9., definitions of issuesand technical terms, and the methodology for analyzing each impact), please see the Ventura Countylnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.

3

Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect**

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**

LS PS-M N LS PS-M PS

lssue (Responsible Department)*

RESOURCES

1. Air Quality (VGAPCD)

Will the proposed project:

X X

a) Exceed any of the thresholds set forth in theair quality assessment guidelines asadopted and periodically updated by theVentura County Air Pollution Control District(VCAPCD), or be inconsistent with the AirQuality Management Plan?

X Xb) Be consistent with the applicable General

Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 1 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


Page 4 of 72

No mitigation required. Residual impacts will be less than significant

lmpact Discussion:

2A-1.There is no water use required for the proposed project. Therefore, no groundwaterwould be used by the proposed project and the proposed project would not directly orindirectly decrease, either individually or cumulatively, the net quantity of groundwater ina groundwater basin that is overdrafted or create an overdrafted groundwater basin.

4


Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)*

N LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS

2A. Water Resources - Groundwater Quantity (WPD)


X X

1) Directly or indirectly decrease, eitherindividually or cumulatively, the net quantityof groundwater in a groundwater basin thatis overdrafted or create an overdraftedgroundwater basin?

X X

2) ln groundwater basins that are notoverdrafted, or are not in hydrologiccontinuity with an overdrafted basin, resultin net groundwater extraction that willindividually or cumulatively causeoverdrafted basin(s)?

X X

3) ln areas where the groundwater basinand/or hydrologic unit condition is not wellknown or documented and there is evidenceof overdraft based upon declining waterlevels in a well or wells, propose any netincrease in groundwater extraction from thatgroundwater basin and/or hydrologic unit?

4) Regardless of items '1-3 above, result in 1.0acre-feet, or less, of net annual increase ingroundwater extraction?

X X

5) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 2A of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL15-0'163lnitialStudy

Page 5 of 72

2A-2.There is no water use required for the proposed project. Therefore, no groundwaterwould be used by the proposed project and the proposed project would not ingroundwater basins that are not overdrafted, or are not in hydrologic continu¡ty with anoverdrafted basin, result in net groundwater extraction that will individually orcumulatively cause overdrafted basin.

2A-3.There is no water use required for the proposed project. Therefore, no groundwaterwould be used by the proposed project and the proposed project would not in areaswhere the groundwater basin and/or hydrologic unit condition is not well known ordocumented and there is evidence of overdraft based upon declining water levels in awell or wells, propose any net increase in groundwater extraction from that groundwaterbasin and/or hydrologic unit.

2A-4.There is no water use required for the proposed project. Therefore, no groundwater, orzero acre-feet, would be used by the proposed project.

2A-5.The proposed project would not be inconsistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ltem 2A of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.


No mitigation required. No impact identified



28. Water Resources - Groundwater Quality (WPD)

Will the proposed project

5



PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS

lssue (Responsible Depa rtment)*

N LS

X X

1) lndividually or cumulatively degrade thequality of groundwater and causegroundwater to exceed groundwater qualityobjectives set by the Basin Plan?

2) Cause the quality of groundwater to fail tomeet the groundwater quality objectives setby the Basin Plan?

X X

X X

3) Propose the use of groundwater in anycapacity and be located within two miles ofthe boundary of a former or current test sitefor rocket engines?

4) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 28 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 6 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

2B-1,28-2.Diesel fuel stored on the proposed project site has the potential to contaminategroundwater if there is a spill or leak from the fuel tank. Standard permit conditions ofapproval will require storage of fuel in accordance with State standards. This will reducethe potential for groundwater degradation to less than significant.

2B-3.The proposed project does not involve the use of groundwater

2B-4.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 28 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.

Mitigation/Residual lm pact(s)

No mitigation required. Residual impacts will be less than significant.


Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)*


6





2C. Water Resources - Surface Water Quantity (WPD)


X X

1) lncrease surface water consumptive use(demand), either individually orcumulatively, in a fully appropriated streamreach as designated by SWRCB or whereunappropriated surface water isunavailable?

X X

2) lncrease surface water consumptive use(demand) including but not limited todiversion or dewatering downstreamreaches, either individually or cumulatively,resulting in an adverse impact to one ormore of the beneficial uses listed in theBasin Plan?

X X3) Be consistent with the applicable General

Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 2C of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL15-0163lnitialStudy

PageT of72

Impact Discussion:

2C-1,2C-2.The proposed project does not involve the consumption of sudace water

2C-3.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 2C of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.




Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effectn*lssue (Responsible Department)*


2D. Water Resources - Surface Water Quality (WPD)

7




lssue (Responsible Department)"


X X

1) lndividually or cumulatively degrade thequality of surface water causing it to exceedwater quality objectives as contained inChapter 3 of the three Basin Plans?

2) Directly or indirectly cause storm waterquality to exceed water quality objectives orstandards in the applicable MS4 Permit orany other NPDES Permits?

X X


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 2D of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


Page I of 72

lmpact Discussion:

2D-1.The proposed project involves the installation of less than 420 square feet of newimpervious surfaces. Thus, it would have a negligible effect on surface water runoff.Thus, the proposed project will not individually or cumulatively degrade the quality ofsurface water causing it to exceed water quality objectives as conta¡ned in Chapter 3 ofthe Los Angeles Basin Plan as applicable for this area. Surface Water Quality is

deemed Less than Significant (LS) because the proposed project is not expected toresult in a violation of any surface water quality standards as defined in the Los AngelesBasin Plan.

2D-2.The proposed project will not directly or indirectly cause stormwater quality to exceedwater quality objectives or standards in the applicable MS4 Permit or any other NPDESPermits. ln accordance with the Ventura Countywide Municipal Stormwater NPDESPermit C4S004002, "Development Construction Program" Subpaft 4.F, the applicantwill be required to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to ensurecompl¡ance and implementation of an effective combination of erosion and sedimentcontrol measures during any construction and/or soil disturbance activities for one of thefollowing classifications: SW-'l form (Best Management Practices for Construction LessThan One Acre).

Neither the individual project nor the cumulative threshold for significance would beexceeded and the project is expected to have a Less than Significant (LS) impact

8

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL'15-0'163lnitial Study

Page I of 72

related to water quality objectives or standards in the applicable MS4 Permit or anyother NPDES Permits

2D-3.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ISAG ltem 2d.



lmpact Discussion:

3A-1, 3A-2.The proposed project site is not located on or immediately adjacent to land within theMineral Resource Protection (MRP) overlay zone, or adjacent to a principal access roadfor an existing aggregate mining operation, and will not have the potential to hamper orpreclude extraction of or access to the aggregate resources. Therefore, the proposedproject will have no impact on mineral resources aggregate.

9


Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**

N LS PS-M PS


3A. Mineral Resources - Aggregate (Plng.)


X X

1) Be located on or immediately adjacent toland zoned Mineral Resource Protection(MRP) overlay zone, or adjacent to aprincipal access road for a site that is thesubject of an existing aggregate ConditionalUse Permit (CUP), and have the potential tohamper or preclude extraction of or accessto the aggregate resources?

X

2) Have a cumulative impact on aggregateresources if, when considered with otherpending and recently approved projects in

the area, the project hampers or precludesextraction or access to identified resources?


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 3A of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


Page 10of72

3A-3.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 3A of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 1.4.1-1, 1.4.1-2, and 1.4.1-3, andResources Policies 1.4.2-6,1.4.2-7, and 1 .4.2-8. Based on the discussion in items 3A-'land 3A-2 above, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General PlanGoals and Policies for ltem 3A of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.

Mitigation/Resid ual lmpact(s)


lmpact Discussion:

38-1.The proposed project site is not be located on or immediately adjacent to any knownpetroleum resource area, or adjacent to a principal access road to an existing petroleumproduction facility. Thus, implementation of the proposed project does not have thepotential to hamper or preclude access to petroleum resources. Therefore, theproposed project will have no impact on petroleum resources.

3B-2.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 38 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 1.4.1-1, 1.4.1-2, 1.4.1-3, and 1.4.1-4,and Resources Policies 1.4.2-1, 1.4.2-4, 1.4.2-5, 1.4.2-6, 1.4.2-8, and 1 .4.2-9. Based onthe above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable


mpact DegreeEffect**

PS-M PS N LS PS-M PSLS

38. Mineral Resources - Petroleum (Plng.)


X X

1) Be located on or immediately adjacent toany known petroleum resource area, oradjacent to a principal access road for a sitethat is the subject of an existing petroleumCUP, and have the potential to hamper orpreclude access to petroleum resources?

X2) Be consistent with the applicable General


X

10


Page 1 1 of72

General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 38 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on mineralresources - petroleum.



lmpact Discussion:

4A-1.Two rare plant surveys have been conducted of the project site. One survey wasconducted for a now-existing wireless communication facility on May g, 2012. Anotherrare plant survey was completed for the proposed project on May 17, 2017. The onlyrare plant observed is a southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica). Thistree is a California Rare Plant Rank 4 species. lt is located within the fuel modificationzone of the proposed wireless communication facility. VCFPD requires that trees belimbed up 3-4 feet off the ground. This trimming is not anticipated to substantially affectthe health of the tree.

ln addition, fuel modification activities will result in the removal of relatively intact coastalsage scrub which could supporl special status plant species. However, there were noother observations of special status plants in the two surveys. lf rare plants do occur butwere not observed during previous surveys, they would be few in quantity and impactsto these few individuals would not constitute a significant impact. ln summary, impactson special status plant species will be less than significant.


LS PS-M PS LS PS-M PS

lssue (Responsible DepaÉment)*

N

4. Biological Resources

44. Species

Willthe proposed project, directly or

1) lmpact one or more plant species byreducing the species' population, reducingthe species' habitat, fragmenting its habitat,or restricting its reproductive capacity?

X X

X

2) lmpact one or more animal species byreducing the species' population, reducingthe species' habitat, fragmenting its habitat,or restricting its reproductive capacity?

X

11


Page 12 of 72

4A-2.No special status species were observed during surveys of the subject property in 2012or in 2016. Much of the coastal sage scrub habitat that surrounds the proposed wirelesscommunication facility is subject to fuel modification as a result of existing facilities inwhich fuel modification is required. However, some areas of the project site would besubject to additional fuel modification as a result of the proposed project. Bird speciessuch as, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens),are known to nest in coastal sage scrub habitats. Fuel modification during the nestingseason could result in nest abandonment and/or destruction, a violation of the MigratoryBird Treaty Act and Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503. However, anyconditional use permit granted to authorize the proposed project will include a conditionof approval that requires a nesting bird survey if initial fuel modification is to occur withinthe nesting season (February 1 - September 1). lf an active nest is found, avoidancemeasures such as postponement of fuel modification activities in the area andmonitoring will be implemented by a qualified biologist. Based on a review of habitats onthe subject property, field surveys, and a review of known occurrences of special statusspecies in the vicinity and their habitat requirements, no special status wildlife areanticipated to be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. Thus, impactson special status species are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation/Residual lmpacts:

No mitigation required. lmpacts will be less than significant

lmpact Discussion:


PS N LS PSN LS

48. Ecological Communities - Sensitive Plant Gommuníties


X X'1) Temporarily or permanently remove sensitive

plant communities through construction,grading, clearing, or other activities?

2) Result in indirect impacts from projectoperation at levels that will degrade thehealth of a sensitive plant community?

X X

4B-1 and 2

12


Page13of72

Approximately 0.52 acres of California Sagebrush - California Buckwheat Purple SageAssociation (Artemisia californica - Eriogonum californica - Salvia leucophylla) wouldbe removed for fuel modification for the proposed project. ln addition, 0.04 acres ofPurple Sage Scrub Alliance (Salvia leucophylla) would also be removed Bothvegetation communities have a conservation status rank of G4S4, meaning they areapparently secure at the global and state levels. The disturbance of these vegetationcommunities would likely result in indirect impacts such as colonization of bare areas byinvasive plants. However, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a resultof the small-scale removal of vegetation and absence of special status species.Consequently, impacts to special status vegetation plant communities are anticipated tobe less than significant, and cumulatively considerable impacts would also be less thansignificant.





N PS N

4C. Ecological Gommunities - Waters and Wetlands


13



N LS PS N LS PS-M PS


X X

1) Cause any of the following activities withinwaters or wetlands: removal of vegetation;grading; obstruction or diversion of waterflow; change in velocity, siltation, volume offlow, or runoff rate; placement of fill;placement of structures; construction of aroad crossing; placement of culverts orother underground piping; or anydisturbance of the substratum?

X X

2) Result in disruptions to wetland or riparianplant communities that will isolate orsubstantially interrupt contiguous habitats,block seed dispersal routes, or increasevulnerability of wetland species to exoticweed invasion or local extirpation?

X X3) lnterfere with ongoing

hydrological conditionswetland?

maintenance ofin a water or

X X4) Provide an adequate buffer for protecting

the functlons and values of existing watersor wetlands?

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL'15-0163lnitial Study

Page 14 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

4C-1, 4C-2, 4C-3, and 4C-4.The subject property is located within the Malibu Creek Watershed. No mapped watersor wetlands are present on the subject property. However; field surveys conducted in

2012 detected two incised channels located within 300 feet of the proposed constructionfootprint.

The first ephemeral channel begins approximately 175 feet east of the proposedwireless communication facility, and is more than 100 feet from the constructionfootprint, and extends approximately 300 linear feet. A concrete channel occurs abovethe developed pad that previously supported a water storage tank and appears to carryflow around and away from the developed pad to the paved access road. The concretechannel starts again below the developed site and along the paved road and directsflow from the road to the naturally occurring channel. The habitat in and adjacent to thedrainage consists of yellow-star thistle (Centaurea melitensis) and black mustard(Brassica nigra) and degraded coastal sage scrub. The second ephemeral channel

14


Page15of72

extends approx¡mately 400 linear feet, is approximately 400 feet north/nofthwest of thedeveloped pad, and is approximately 300 feet nodh of the construction footprint. lt issurrounded by undisturbed coastal sage scrub.

Plant species specifically associated with wetland conditions were not observed ateither channel. Both channels appear to drain into storm drainage systems associatedwith the surrounding residential development. The two drainages are not SignificantWetland Habitats and do not support habitat typical of a wetland or water.Approximately 0.89 acres of fuel modification will occur as a result of the proposedproject; however, no grading will occur. Consequently, no direct impacts are anticipatedto wetlands or waters. ln addition, the project will require compliance with the VenturaCountywide Stormwater Municipal Permit No. CAS004002, and any deleterious effectsassociated with changes in runoff, erosion, and sedimentation would be resolvedthrough implementation of required Best Management Practices to comply with thispermit.

Based on the above discussion, impacts on wetlands will be less than significant

Mitigation and Avoidance Measures

No mitigation required. lmpacts will be less than significant.

lmpact Discussion

4D-1 and 2.



PS N LS PSN LS PS-M


4D. Ecological Communities - ESHA (Applies to CoastalZone Only)


X X

'l) Temporarily or permanently remove ESHAor disturb ESHA buffers throughconstruction, grading, clearing, or otheractivities and uses (ESHA buffers are within100 feet of the boundary of ESHA asdefined in Section 8172-1 of the CoastalZoning Ordinance)?

X X2) Result in indirect impacts from project

operation at levels that will degrade thehealth of an ESHA?

15


Page 16 of 72

The project site is not located in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, ESHA policies andanalysis do not apply The proposed project will not result in direct or indirect impacts toESHA.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will have no project-specific orcumulative impacts on ESHA.



lmpact Discussion:

4E-1.The project site is located outside of the Santa Monica Mountain to Sierra MadreConnection, a wildlife linkage mapped as part of the South Coast Missing WildlandsProject. Wildlife movement corridors are not exclusively contained within these mappedareas, and the proposed project will involve the removal of approximately 0.89 acres ofnative and non-native vegetation. However, the subject property lies at the margins of alarger open space area, and while it likely provides some habitat for wildlife movement,the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to wildlife


Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effectn*



4E. Habitat Connectivity


X X1) Remove habitat within a wildlife movementcorridor?

X X2) lsolate habitat?

X X

3) Construct or create barriers that impede fishand/or wildlife movement, migration or longterm connectivity or interfere with wildlifeaccess to foraging habitat, breeding habitat,water sources, or other areas necessary for theirreproduction?

X X4) lntimidate fish or wildlife via the introduction

of noise, light, development or increasedhuman presence?

'16


Page17 of72

movement. Consequently, impacts to a wildlife corridor are anticipated to be less thansignificant.

4E-2,4E-3, 4E-4.The proposed project modifications will not directly isolate habitat and will not create abarrier s¡nce the existing site contains fencing that may prevent wildlife access topoftions of the site. No lighting is proposed as part of the proposed project. Noiseassociated with operation of the facility is anticipated to be a negligible increase, andnoise associated with construction would be temporary and take place during day lighthours. A majority of wildlife movement likely occurs at dusk, dawn, or at night, thusmost wildlife would not be impacted by construction noise and human presence. As aresult, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to habitat connectivity and wildlifemovement are anticipated to be less than significant.


No mitigation required. lmpacts will be less than significant

lmpact Discussion:

4F.The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan Goals and Policies. Theproposed project is not anticipated to impact significant wetland habitats and has beenevaluated for potential impacts on wetlands and waters within 300 feet of the proposedproject. ln addition, the proposed project will not result in the loss or damage of healthymature trees or sensitive plant species, and no blasting is necessary as part ofproposed construction. As a result, the project is consistent with the biological resourcepolicies in the Oak Park Area Plan and there are no impacts associated with potentialinconsistencies.


No mitigation required. No impact identífied


N LS N LS

X

4F. Will the proposed project be consistent withthe applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ltem 4 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines?

X

17



N PS N LS PS-M PS


5A. Agricultural Resources - Soils (Plng.)


X X

1) Result in the direct and/or indirect loss ofsoils designated Prime, Statewidelmportance, Unique or Local lmportance,beyond the threshold amounts set forth inSection 5a.C of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines?

X X2) lnvolve a General Plan amendment that willresult in the loss of agricultural soils?



Verizon Wireless WCF, PL15-0'163lnitial Study

Page '18 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

5A-1.According to the lmportant Farmland lnventory Map, the proposed project site includessoil designated as other land. The proposed project does not have the potential toimpact soils classified as Prime, Statewide lmportance, Unique or Local lmportance.Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on agricultural soil resources.

5A-2.The proposed project will not involve a General Plan amendment that would result in theloss of agricultural soils. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact onagricultural resources - soils.

5A-3.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 5A of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goal 1.6.1-1, and Resources Policies 1.6.2-1,1.6.2-4, Piru Area Plan Goals 3.7.1-1 and 3.7.1-2. Based on the above discussion, theproposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 5A of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed projectwill have a less than significant impact on agricultural resources - soils.



1B




58. Agricultural Resources - Land Use lncompatibility (Plng.)


1) lf not defined as Agriculture or AgriculturalOperations in the zoning ordinances, becloser than the threshold distances set forthin Section 5b.C of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines?

X X


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 5b of thelnltial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X


Page19of72

lmpact Discussion:

58-1.The proposed project does not include agriculture or agr¡cultural operations. There areno agricultural operations within 300 feet of the proposed project site. Therefore, theproposed project will have no impacts on agricultural operations.

5B-2.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 58 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 1.6.1-1, 1.6.1-2, 3.7.1-1, and 3.7.1-2,and Resources Policies 1.6.2-6, 3.7.2-2, and 3.7.2-3. Based on the above discussion,the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ltem 5B of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposedproject will have a less than significant impact on agricultural resources - land usecompatibility.





N PS-M PS LS PS

6. Scenic Resources (Plng.)


19





a) Be located within an area that has a scenicresource that is visible from a public viewinglocation, and physically alter the scenicresource either individually or cumulativelywhen combined with recently approved,current, and reasonably foreseeable futureprojects?

X X

b) Be located within an area that has a scenicresource that is visible from a public viewinglocation, and substantially obstruct,degrade, or obscure the scenic vista, eitherindividually or cumulatively when combinedwith recently approved, current, andreasonably foreseeable future projects?

X X

c) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 6 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 20 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

6a and 6b.The proposed project site is located approximately 3,000 feet to the west of KananRoad, which is an Eligible County Scenic Highway. The site is not located within thescenic corridor of the roadway. The project site is located on a hillside and the proposedfaux elm tree will be visible from select public viewing locations on Medea Creek Lane(Attachment 3, Site Photographs). Given the faux tree design of the facility, the twoother similarly-designed facilities, and the nearby native trees, the proposed facility willnot be prominently distinguishable from the surrounding setting. Therefore, impacts onvisual resources will be less than significant.

6c.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 6 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 1.7.1-1, 1.7.1-2, 1.3.1-1, 1.3.1-2, andResources Policies 1.7.2-1, 1.7.2-2, 1.3.2-1, 1.3.2-2, 1.3.2-3, 1.3.2-4, 1.3.2-5, 1.3.2-6,and 1.3.2-7, and Oak Park Area Plan Goals 1.4.1-1 through -3, and Policies 1.4.2-1through -4. Based on the above discussion under ltem 6a, the proposed project is

consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 6 of the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines.

Miti gation/Residual lmpact(s)

20


Page2l of72


lmpact Discussion:

7a.According to the Ventura County GIS Paleontological Resources maps (2006a), theproject site is located within a "moderate" area for paleontological resources. However,it is unlikely that the proposed project will have an adverse impact on paleontologicalresources. Ground disturbance activities will occur within an area that has previouslybeen graded for the construction of the former water tank and communications facilities.Undisturbed paleontological materials are not anticipated to be found. ln any case,future grading and construction activities will be subject to the Planning Division'sstandard condition of approval regarding the discovery of previously unknownsubsurface resources. With this condition, any potential impacts to resourcesdiscovered during ground-disturbance activities will be avoided. Based on the abovediscussion, impacts on paleontological resources will be less than significant.

7b.The proposed project does not include grading that could result in the progressive lossof exposed rock that can be studied and prospected for fossil remains. Therefore, theproposed project will have a less than significant impact on paleontological resources.



LS PS-M PS LS PS-M PS


7. Paleontological Resources


X X

a) For the area of the property that is disturbedby or during the construction of theproposed project, result in a direct orindirect impact to areas of paleontologicalsignificance?

X Xb) Contribute to the progressive loss of

exposed rock in Ventura County that can bestudied and prospected for fossil remains?

X Xc) Be consistent with the applicable General


7c.

21


Page 22 of 72

The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 7 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 1 .8.1-1, 1 .8.1 -2, and Resources Policies1.8.2-1,1.8.2-2, and 1.8.2-3. Based on the discussion provided under items TaandTbabove, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ltem 7 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, impactson Paleontological Resources will be less than significant.

Mitigation/Resid ual lm pact(s)


lmpact Discussion:

BA-1 and BA-2.The project site has been previously graded for construction of the existing structures.No known archaeological resources exist on the site (Ventura County G/S). ln any case,future grading and construction activities will be subject to the Planning Division'sstandard condition of approval regarding the discovery of previously unknownsubsudace resources. With this condition, any potential impacts on resources


Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect".

PS N LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M

84. Cultural Resources - Archaeological


X X

1) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics thataccount for the inclusion of the resource in alocal register of historical resourcespursuant to Section 5020.'1(k) requirementsof Section 502a1ß) of the PublicResources Code?

X X

2) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics of anarchaeological resource that convey itsarchaeological significance and that justifyits eligibility for inclusion in the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources asdetermined by a lead agency for thepurposes of CEQA?



22


Page 23 of 72

discovered during ground-disturbance activities will be avoided. Based on the abovediscussion, impacts on archaeological resources will be less than significant.

8A-3.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 8A of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 1.8.1-1, 1.8.1-2, 1.4.1-1, 1.4.1-2, andResources Policies 1.8.2-1, 1.8.2-2, 1.8.2-3, 1.8.2-4, 1.8.2-5, 1.4.2-1, 1.4.2-2, and 1.4.2-3, and Oak Park Area Plan Goals 1 .5.1-1 & -2, and Policies 1 .5.2-1 & -2. Based on theabove discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 8A of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on CulturalResou rces (Archaeolog ical).



PS N

88. Gultural Resources - Historic (Plng.)


23





X X

1) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics of anhistorical resource that convey its historicalsignificance and that justify its inclusion in,or eligibility for, inclusion in the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources?

X X

2) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics thataccount for its inclusion in a local register ofhistorical resources pursuant to Section5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code orits identification in a historical resourcessurvey meeting the requirements of Section5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code?

XX

3) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics of ahistorical resource that convey its historicalsignificance and that justify its eligibility forinclusion in the California Register ofHistorical Resources as determined by alead agency for purposes of CEQA?

X X

4) Demolish, relocate, or alter an historicalresource such that the significance of thehistorical resource will be impaired [PublicResources Code, Sec. 5020(q)l?


Page 24 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

8B-1, 8B-2,88-3, and BB-4:The subject property and other lots located within the cumulative impact analysis areaare not located within, or adjacent to, a local, state, or federally designated historicalresource. Moreover, the development of the stealth designed communication facility willnot include the alteration or demolition of any buildings with historical merit and,therefore, will not have the potential to adversely impact any historical buildings orstructures. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts to historical resources.



24





9. Coastal Beaches and Sand Dunes


X X

a) Cause a direct or indirect adverse physicalchange to a coastal beach or sand dune,which is inconsistent with any of the coastalbeaches and coastal sand dunes policies ofthe California Coastal Act, correspondingCoastal Act regulations, Ventura CountyCoastal Area Plan, or the Ventura CountyGeneral Plan Goals, Policies andPrograms?

X

b) When considered together with one or morerecently approved, current, and reasonablyforeseeable probable future projects, resultin a direct or indirect, adverse physicalchange to a coastal beach or sand dune?

Xc) Be consistent with the applicable General


X


Page 25 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

9a and 9b.The proposed project site is located near the community of Oak Park, which is greaterthan 10.5 miles from the nearest coastal dunes. The project does not include anyactivities that could lead to degradation, erosion or destruction of coastal dunes.Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on coastal beaches and sanddunes.

9c.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem I of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are. Resources Goal 1.10.1, and Resources Policies 1.10.2-1,1.10.2-2, 1.10.2-3, and 1 .10.2-4. Based on the discussion under lmpact 9a above, theproposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 9 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed projectwill not result in a significant impact on Coastal Beaches and Sand Dunes.


25

Verizon Wireless WCF PL'15-0163lnitial Study

Page 26 of 72


lmpact Discussion

10a and 10b.Any discussion of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards to the proposedproject is provided for informational purposes only and is neither required by CEQA norsubject to its requirements. There are no known active or potentially active faultsextending through the proposed project based on State of California Earthquake FaultZones in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and VenturaCounty General Plan Hazards Appendix -Figure 2.2.3b. Furthermore, no proposedhabitable structures are within 50 feet of a mapped trace of an active fault. There is noimpact (N) from potential fault rupture hazard.

1 0c.The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem10 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.





10. Fault Rupture Haza¡d (PWA)


a) Be at risk with respect to fault rupture in itslocation within a State of Californiadesignated Alquist-Priolo Special FaultStudy Zone?

X

b) Be at risk with respect to fault rupture in itslocation within a County of Venturadesignated Fault Hazard Area?

X

c) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem '10 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


26



N LS PS-MN LS PS-M PS


11. Ground Shaking Hazard (PWA)


NA NA NA NAXa) Be built in accordance with all applicable

requirements of the Ventura County BuildingCode?

XXb) Be consistent with the applicable General



Page27 of72

lmpact Discussion:

11a.The property will be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking from seismic eventson local and regional fault systems. The present County of Ventura Building codeadopted from the California Building Code, dated 2013, Chapter 16, Section 1613requires the structures be designed to withstand this ground shaking. Theseparameters may need to be updated to the building code in effect at the time theapplication for a building permit is submitted. The requirements of the building code willreduce the effects of ground shaking to less than significant (LS).

1 1b.The requirements of the building code will reduce the effects of ground shaking to lessthan significant (LS). Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 11 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.





LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M PSN


12. Liquefaction Hazards (PWA)


27

Verizon Wireless WCF PL15-0163lnitial Study

Page 28 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

12a.The project site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone based on the VenturaCounty General Plan Hazards Appendix - Figure 2.4b. This map is a compilation of theState of California Seismic Hazards Maps for the County of Ventura and is used as thebasis for delineating the potential liquefaction hazards within the County. Consequently,liquefaction is not a factor for the proposed project and the site is not within a State ofCalifornia Seismic Hazards zone for liquefaction. There is no impact (N) from potentialhazards from liquefaction.

12b.Liquefaction is not a factor for the proposed project and the site is not within a State ofCalifornia Seismic Hazards zone for liquefaction. There is no impact (N) from potentialhazards from liquefaction. Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicableGeneral Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 12 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.

M itigation/Resid ual lm pact(s)





a) Expose people or structures to potentialadverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving liquefactionbecause it is located within a SeismicHazards Zone?

X

b) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 12 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X




13. Seiche and Tsunami Hazards (PWA)


28



PS N LS PS-M PSN LS PS-M


Xa) Be located within about 10 to 20 feet of

vertical elevation from an enclosed body ofwater such as a lake or reservoir?

Xb) Be located in a mapped area of tsunami

hazard as shown on the County GeneralPlan maps?

XXc) Be consistent with the applicable General



Page 29 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

13a.The site is not located adjacent to a closed or restricted body of water based on aerialimagery review (photos dated January 1,2014, aerial imagery is under the copyrights ofPictometry, Source: PictometryO, January 1,2014) and is not subject to seiche hazard.There is no hazard from potential seiche and no impact (N) to the proposed project.

1 3b.The project is not mapped within a tsunami inundation zone based on the VenturaCounty General Plan, Hazards Appendix, Figure 2.6. There is no impact (N) frompotential hazards from tsunami.

1 3c.The site is not located near a closed or restricted body of water based on aerial imageryreview (Aerial imagery is under the copyrights of Pictometry, Source: Pictometry@,January 1, 2014) and would not be subject to seiche hazard. The project, is notmapped within a tsunami inundation zone based on the Ventura County General Plan,Hazards Appendix Figure 2.6. There is no impact (N) from potential hazards fromSeiche and Tsunamis to the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with theapplicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 13 of the lnitial StudyAssessmentGuidelines.




Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Depa rtment)*

29

1 4. Landslide/Mudflow Hazard (PWA)


a) Result in a landslide/mudflow hazard, asdetermined by the Public Works AgencyCertified Engineering Geologist, based onthe location of the site or project within, oroutside of mapped landslides, potentialearthquake induced landslide zones, andgeomorphology of hillside terrain?

X


X X


Page 30 of 72

lmpact Discussion

14a.The project involves a non-essential, wireless communication tower and equipmentfacility that may be subject to damage from potential seismically induced landslides ormapped landslides. The Geotechnical lnvestigation Report, prepared by Geoboden lnc.,dated February 18,2015, concludes that the bedrock beneath the site is massive andthe risk of landslidíng is low. Because the site is a non-essential facility and thegeotechn¡cal report concludes a low risk of hazard from landsliding, the potentiallandslide hazards are considered to be less than significant (LS).

14b.Because the site is a non-essent¡al facility and the geotechnical report concludes a lowrisk of hazard from landsliding, the potential landslide hazards are considered to be lessthan significant (LS). Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 14 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.



15. Expansive Soils Hazards (PWA)

30



N PS-M PS N LS PS


LS


X

a) Expose people or structures to potentialadverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving soil expansionbecause it is located within a soilsexpansive hazard zone or where soils withan expansion index greater than 20 arepresent?




Page31 of72

lmpact Discussion:

15a.The Expans¡on index testing report prepared by Geoboden lnc., dated February 18,

2015 2015, indicates the near surface soils for the site possess low expansion (El = 48,page B-1.

Future development at the site will be subject to the requirements of the County ofVentura Building Code adopted from the California Building Code, in effect at the time ofconstruction that requires mitigation of potential adverse effects of expansive soils. Thehazard assoc¡ated with adverse effects of expansive soils is less than significant (LS).

1 5b.As discussed above, lhe hazard associated with adverse effects of expansive soils is

less than significant (LS). Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicableGeneral Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 15 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.





LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS


N

16. Subsidence Hazard (PWA)


31


Page 32 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

1 6a.The subject property is not within the probable subsidence hazard zone as delineatedon the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix, Figure 2.8 (October 22, 2013).ln addition, the project is not for oil, gas or groundwater withdrawal. Therefore, theproject would have no impact (N) on the hazard of subsidence.

1 6b.As discussed above, the project would have no impact (N) on the hazard of subsidence.Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 16 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.





PS-M PS N LS PS-M PSN LS


X

a) Expose people or structures to potentialadverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving subsidencebecause it is located within a subsidencehazard zone?





N LS PS N LS PS


17a. Hydraulic Hazards - Non-FEMA (PWA)


32


Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)"


1) Result in a potential erosion/siltation hazardand flooding hazard pursuant to any of thefollowing documents (individually,collectively, or in combination with oneanother):. 2007 Ventura County Building Code

Ordinance No.4369. Ventura County Land Development

Manual. Ventura County Subdivision Ordinance. Ventura County Coastal Zoning

Ordinance. Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning

Ordinance. Ventura County Standard Land

Development Specifications. Ventura County Road Standards. Ventura County Watershed Protection

District Hydrology Manual. County of Ventura Stormwater Quality

Ordinance, Ordinance No. 4142. Ventura County Hillside Erosion Control

Ordinance, Ordinance No. 3539 andOrdinance No. 3683

¡ Ventura County Municipal Storm WaterNPDES Permit

. State General Construction Permit

. State General lndustrial Permit

. National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES)?

X X



X


Page 33 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

17 A-1 .

The net impervious area due to the project and will be about 20 square feet to accountfor the new monoelm foundation. The equipment facility will be placed on an existingimpervious area (asphalt). The runoff will be by sheetflow to the existing drainageimprovements previously constructed for an existing water tank and access. Noincrease in flooding hazard or potential for erosion or siltation will occur as a result ofthe new communication facility. lmpacts will be less than significant.

33


Page 34 of 72

17p.-2.Given the lack of a significant impact, the project is consistent with the applicableGeneral Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 17a of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines.

Miti gation/Resid ual lm pact(s)


lmpact Discussion:

178-1, 178-2, 178-3, 178-4.The project site is not located in or adjacent to a Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) 1o/o annual chance ('10O-year) floodplain as evidenced the effectiveDigital Flood lnsurance Rate Map (DFIRM) 06111C0995E (January 20,2010). The site



PS-M PSN PS-M PS N LS


17b. Hydraulic Hazards - FEMA (WPD)


XX

1) Be located outside of the boundaries of a

Special Flood Hazard Area and entirelywithin a FEMA-determined'X-Unshaded'flood zone (beyond lhe 0.2% annual chancefloodplain: beyond the 500-year floodplain)?

XX

2) Be located outside of the boundaries of a

Special Flood Hazard Area and entirelywithin a FEMA-determined'X-Shaded' floodzone (within the 0.2% annual chancefloodplain: within the 500-year floodplain)?

X X

3) Be located, in part or in whole, within theboundaries of a Special Flood Hazard Area('1% annual chance floodplain: 1O0-year),but located entirely outside of theboundaries of the Regulatory Floodway?

XX

4) Be located, in part or in whole, within theboundaries of the Regulatory Floodway, asdetermined using the 'Effective' and latestavailable DFIRMs provided by FEMA?

XX5) Be consistent with the applicable General


34


Page 35 of 72

is located in an "X Unshaded (500-year flood zone) The nearest floodplain is on MedeaCreek which is located approximately 1,61g-ft. easterly of the site. A FloodplainDevelopment Permit and a Floodplain Clearance are not required. The proposed projectwill not result in project-related impacts related to flooding, or contribute to cumulativeimpacts related to flooding. The environmental impact is deemed to be less thansignificant.

17B-5.Based on the project description presented on the RMA Planning Distribution Memodated December 11, 2015, the proposed project is determined by the WPD to bedesigned in conformance with the Flood Hazard policies of the Ventura County GeneralPlan.



lmpact Discussion:

18a.This project is located within a high fire hazard area and will be required to meet all fireand building standards. Compliance with these standards will reduce impacts to a lessthan significant level.

1 8b.This project is designed consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan




N LS PS N PS


18. Fire Hazards (VCFPD)


X Xa) Be located within High Fire Hazard

Areas/Fire Hazard Severity Zones orHazardous Watershed Fire Areas?




35


Page 36 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

19a.The proposed project does not include any potential obstruction to air navigation.Therefore, the proposed project will be in compliance with the County's AirportComprehensive Land Use Plan and Federal Aviation Regulation Part77. Therefore, theproposed project will have no impact on aviation hazards.

1 9b.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 19 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goa|2J4.1-1, and Resources Policy 2.14.2-2.Based on the discussion under lmpact 19a above, the proposed project will beconsistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 19 of the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines.

Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on AviationHazards.




Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*t


lssue (Responsible Department)t

19. Aviation Hazards (Airports)


X X

a) Comply with the County's AirportComprehensive Land Use Plan and pre-established federal criteria set forth in

Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77(Obstruction Standards)?





PSN LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M


36


Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Depa rtment)*


20a. Hazardous Materials/Waste - Materials (EHD/Fire)


1) Utilize hazardous materials in compliancewith applicable state and local requirementsas set forth in Section 20a of the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 20a of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page37 of72

lmpact Discussion:

204-1.The proposed project includes the use of hazardous materials typically associated witha cellular tower emergency generator. lmproper storage, handling, and disposal ofthese material(s) could result in the creation of adverse impacts to the environment.Compliance with applicable state and local regulations will reduce potential project-specific and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

20A-2.As the project will be operated in compliance with State and Local regulations, it will beconsistent with applicable General Plan policies.





N LS PS N LS PS

2Ob. Hazardous MaterialsMaste - Waste (EHD)


37



PS N LS PS-M PSN LS PS-M


X X1) Comply with applicable state and local

requirements as set forth in Section 20b ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 20b of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL15-0'163lnitialStudy

Page 38 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

20b-1 and 20b-2.The proposed project does not involve activities that generate hazardous waste. Theproject will not have any project-specific or cumulative impact relative to hazardousWAStCS.



LS LS

21. Noise and Vibration


38





XX

a) Either individually or when combined withother recently approved, pending, andprobable future projects, produce noise in

excess of the standards for noise in theVentura County General Plan Goals,Policies and Programs (Section 2.'16) or theapplicable Area Plan?

XX

b) Either individually or when combined withother recently approved, pending, andprobable future projects, includeconstruction activities involving blasting,pile-driving, vibratory compaction,demolition, and drilling or excavation whichexceed the threshold criteria provided in theTransit Noise and Vibration lmpactAssessment (Section 12.2)?

XX

c) Result in a transit use located within any ofthe critical distances of the vibration-sensitive uses listed in Table 1 (lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines, Section 21 )?

XX

d) Generate new heavy vehicle (e.9. semi-truck or bus) trips on uneven roadwayslocated within proximity to sensitive usesthat have the potential to either individuallyor when combined with other recentlyapproved, pending, and probable futureprojects, exceed the threshold criteria of theTransit Use Thresholds for rubber-tire heavyvehicle uses (lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines, Section 21-D, Table 1, ltem No.3)?

XX

e) lnvolve blasting, pile-driving, vibratorycompaction, demolition, drilling, excavation,or other similar types of vibration-generatingactivities which have the potential to eitherindividually or when combined with otherrecently approved, pending, and probablefuture projects, exceed the threshold criteriaprovided in the Transit Noise and Vibrationlmpact Assessment [Hanson, Carl E. DavidA. Towers, and Lance D. Meister. (May2006) Section 12.21?


Page 39 of 72

39



N LS PS-M PS N LS PS

f) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 21 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 40 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

21a.The proposed project is a potential noise generator. The facility will generate noise fromthe equipment cabinets. The noise from the equipment cabinets can generally be heardonly when next to the cabinet. The facility will also generate noise from the emergencygenerator. The emergency generator will only be operated during emergencies. Thenearest noise sensitive uses are condominiums located to the northeast. Thecommunications facility is at a higher elevation and generally screened from thesecondominiums by surrounding vegetation. Given the distance to the nearby noisesensitive uses and the surrounding vegetation, the facility is not anticipated to generatesignificant noise impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will result in less thansignificant noise/vibration impacts.

21b.The proposed project does not include any construction activities involving blasting, piledriving, vibratory compaction, or demolition. The proposed project will includeexcavation. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate any impacts that couldexceed the threshold criteria in Section 12.2. Therefore, the proposed project will have aless than significant impact on noise and vibration.

21c.The proposed project does not include any transit use. Therefore, the proposed projectwill have no impact on noise and vibration.

21d.The proposed project will include new heavy vehicle trips for the construction equipmentto be brought to and from the site. The proposed project does not have the potential toexceed the threshold criteria of the Transit Use Thresholds for rubber-tire heavy vehicleuses. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on noiseand vibration.

21e.The proposed project does not include any blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction,or demolition. The proposed project includes excavation for construction of the footingof the faux elm tree. The grading activities are not anticipated to have the potential toexceed the threshold criteria provided in the Transit Noise and Vibration lmpact

40


Page 41 of 72

Assessment. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact onnoise and vibration.

21f .

The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 21 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 2.16.1, 2.4.1-1, 2.4.1-2, and ResourcesPolicies 2.16.2-1, 2.16.2-2, 2.16.2-3, 2.4.2-1, 2.4.2-2, and 2.4.2-3, and Oak Park AreaPlan Goals 2.4.1-1 & -2, and Policies 2.4.2-1 through -5. Based on the discussionprovided under items 21-a through2lb above, the proposed project will be consistentwith the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 21 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significantimpact on Noise and Vibration.



lmpact Discussion:

22a.The proposed project includes the construction of a faux elm tree that will be colored toblend in with the surrounding vegetation. The faux tree will not be reflective and will notcreate any disability glare or discomfort glare for motorists travelling along Kanan Road.The proposed project will not use any materials that could be a potential source of glare(reflective surfaces including metal and glass) and will not have the potential togenerate any daytime glare. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less thansignificant impact on glare.



N LS PS N LS PS


22. Daytime Glare


X X

a) Create a new source of disability glare ordiscomfort glare for motorists travellingalong any road of the County RegionalRoad Network?



41


Page 42 of 72

22b.The applicable General Plan Policy for ltem 22 of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines is Policy 3.4.2-4. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project willbe consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 22 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project will have a lessthan significant impact on Daytime Glare.



lmpact Discussion:

23a.The proposed project may have impacts to public health associated with hazardousmaterials. Compliance with applicable state and local regulations will reduce potentialprojeclspecific and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

23b.The proposed project may have impacts to public health associated with hazardousmaterials. Compliance with applicable state and local regulations will reduce potentialproject-specific and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.



N


LS PS-M

23. Public Health (EHD)


a) Result in impacts to public health fromenvironmental factors as set forth in Section23 of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines?

X X

Xb) Be consistent with the applicable General


X


42





24. Greenhouse Gases (VCAPCD)


X X

a) Result in environmental impacts fromgreenhouse gas emissions, either projectspecifically or cumulatively, as set forth in

CEQA Guidelines S$ 15064(hX3), 15064.4,15130(bX1)(B) and -(d), and 15183.5?


Page 43 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

24a.The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District has not yet adopted any approach tosetting a threshold of significance for land use development projects in the area ofproject greenhouse gas emissions. The project will generate less than significantimpacts to regional and local air quality and the project will be subject to a condition ofapproval to ensure that all project construction and operations shall be conducted incompliance with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, the amount ofgreenhouse gases anticipated from the project will be a small fraction of the levels beingconsidered by the APCD for greenhouse gas significance thresholds and far belowthose adopted to date by any air district in the state.

Therefore, the project specific and cumulative impacts to greenhouse gases are lessthan significant.




Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*"



25. Community Character (Plng.)


43




a) Either individually or cumulatively whencombined with recently approved, current,and reasonably foreseeable probable futureprojects, introduce physical developmentthat is incompatible with existing land uses,architectural form or style, sitedesign/layout, or density/parcel sizes withinthe community in which the project site islocated?

X X


X X


Page 44 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

25a.The proposed project site is surrounded by undeveloped land (Attachment A, LocationMap). Furlher to the east is the community of Oak Park and residential units. The sitewas previously developed with a water tank in 1966 and the two communicationsfacilities in 1998. The existing communications facilities are visible from various publicviewing locations in Oak Park. With the stealth design of the facility, the facility will notbe prominently visible when viewed from public viewing locations within the surroundingcommunity. Thus, the changes that would result from the project would not substantiallyalter or affect the character of the community. Therefore, the proposed project impactson community character will be less than significant.

25b.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 25 of the lnitial StudyAssessmentGuidelines are: General Land Use: Goals 3.1.1-2 through -5, and Policies3.1.2-2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, -10, & -11; Land Use Designations: Goals 3.2.1-1 through -7 ,

and Policies 3.2.2-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, & -7; Population and Housing. Goals 3.3.1-6 through -8, and Policy 3.3.2-6(2); Employment and Commerce/lndustry: Goals 3.4.1-1, -2, -3, -4,& -6, and Policies 3.4.2-1, & -3 through -7. Based on the above discussion, theproposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies forItem 25 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.



44





26. Housing (Plng.)


X

a) Eliminate three or more dwelling units thatare affordable to:. moderate-income households that are

located within the Coastal Zone',and/or,

. lower-incomehouseholds?

X

X X

b) lnvolve construction which has an impact onthe demand for additional housing due topotential housing demand created byconstruction workers?

X Xc) Result in 30 or more new full{ime-equivalent lower-income employees?

X Xd) Be consistent with the applicable General



Page 45 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

26a.The proposed project will not remove any existing housing. Therefore, the proposedproject will have no impact on housing.

26b and 26c.The proposed project involves short-term construction of a single wirelesscommunication facility. No long-term demand for housing will be created. The proposedproject will not result in 30 or more new full time equivalent lower income employees.Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on housing.

26d.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 26 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 3.3.1-3 and 3.4.1-6, and Policies 3.3.2-2,3.4.2-8, and 3.4.2-9. Based on the discussion provided under items 26a through 26c,the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 26 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.

45


Page 46 of 72



lmpact Discussion:

27a(1)-a.The project is an unmanned wireless communication facility. The only traffic associatedwith the proposed project is an occasionally visit by company personnel for equipmentmaintenance. No substantial new traffic on the Regional Road Network and local publicroads will be generated. Thus, the project does not have the potential to alter the levelof service (LOS) of County roads near the project. Traffic impacts relating to LOS will beLess Than Significant.







27a(11. Transportation & Circulation - Roads and Highways - Level of Service (LOS) (PWA)


X X

a) Cause existing roads within the RegionalRoad Network or Local Road Network that arecurrently functioning at an acceptable LOS tofunction below an acceptable LOS?



LS PS N LS PS


N

27a(21. TranspoÉation & Circulation - Roads and Highways - Safety and Design of Public Roads(PWA)


46




a) Have an Adverse, Significant ProjeclSpecificor Cumulative lmpact to the Safety and Designof Roads or lntersections within the RegionalRoad Network (RRN) or Local Road Network(LRN)?

X X


Page47 of72

lmpact Discussion:

27a(2)-a.The project is an unmanned wireless communication facility. The only traffic associatedwith the proposed project is an occasionally visit by company personnel for equipmentmaintenance. No substantial new traffic on the Regional Road Network and local publicroads will be generated. Thus, the project does not have the potential to alter the levelof service (LOS) of County roads near the project. Thus, adverse traffic impacts relatingto safety/des¡gn will be Less Than Significant.





LS PS N

lssue (Responsible Depa rtment)"

N LS PS-M PS

27a(31. Transportation & Girculation - Roads & Highways - Safety & Design of Private Access(vcFPD)

X

a) lf a private road or private access isproposed, will the design of the private roadmeet the adopted Private Road Guidelinesand access standards of the VCFPD aslisted in the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines?

X

b) Will the project be consistent with theapplicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 27a(3) of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines?

X X

47


Page 48 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

27a(3)-a.No new roads are proposed

27a(3)-b.This project is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan



lmpact Discussion

27a(4)-a.Access to the site is existing and meets current VCFPD Standards

27a(4)-b.This project is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan







N LS PS N LS PS

27a(41. Transportation & Circulation - Roads & Highways - Tactical Access (VCFPD)


Xa) lnvolve a road or access, public or private,

that complies with VCFPD adopted PrivateRoad Guidelines?

X


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 27a(4) ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

48


27b. Transportation & Circulation - Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities (PWA/Plng.)


1) Cause actual or potential barriers to existingor planned pedestrian/bicycle facilities? X X

2) Will the Project have an Adverse, SignificantProjectSpecific or Cumulative lmpact toPedestrian and Bicycle Facilities within theRegional Road Network (RRN) or Local RoadNetwork (LRN)?

X X

3) Be consistent with the applicable General PlanGoals and Policies for ltem 27b of the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 49 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

27b-1.The project is located on adjacent to two existing communications facilities on a hill inOak Park that is accessed by a private driveway connected to a public road. Theconstruction of a new communications facility will not cause any barriers topedestrian/bicycle facilities. Therefore, adverse impacts on pedestrian/bicycle facilitieswill be less than significant.

27b-2.The project is an unmanned wireless communication facility. The project will notgenerate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Therefore, adverse traffic impacts relating to theaddition of pedestrians and bicycles will be less than sSignificant.

27b-3.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 27b of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 4.2.1-1, 4.2.1-6, 4.2.1-8, 4.2.1-9 and4.2.1-10, and Policies 4.2.2-2,4.2.2-8, and 4,2.2-9, Oak Park Area Plan Goals 4.'1.1-1 &-3, and Oak Park Area Plan Policies 4.1.2-2, -6 & -8. Based on the above discussionunder items 27b-1 and 27b-2, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicableGeneral Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 27b of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines.



49




27c. Transportation & Girculation - Bus Transit


1) Substantially interfere with existing bustransit facilities or routes, or create asubstantial increase in demand foradditional or new bus transitfacilities/services?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27c of lhelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 50 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

27c-1.The proposed project will not substantially interfere with existing bus facilities or routes,or create a substantial increased demand for additional or new bus transitfacilities/services. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts onTransportation Bus.

27c-2.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policy for ltem 27c of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are. Resources Goals 4.2.1-1, 4.2.1-6, 4.2.1-7, 4.2.1-8 and4.2.1-9, and Policy 4.2.2-8, Oak Park Area Plan Goals 4.1.1-1 & -4, Oak Park Area PlanPolicies 4.1.2-7 & -8. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will beconsistentwith the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 27cof the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less thansignificant impact on Transporlation & Circulation - Bus Transit.





N LS PS N


LS PS-M PS

50




27d. Transportation & Circulation - Railroads


1) lndividually or cumulatively, substantiallyinterfere with an existing railroad's facilitiesor operations?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27d of hhe

lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?X X


Page 51 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

27d-1.The proposed project is not located near any railroad facilities. Thus, it would notinterfere with an existing railroad's facilities or operations. Therefore, the proposedproject will have no impacts on railroads.

27d-2.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policy for ltem 27d of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 4.2.1-1, 4.2.1-11, and 4.2.1-12, andPolicy 4.2.2-9. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistentwith the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 27d of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact onrailroads.







27e. Transportation & Circulation - Airports (Airports)


51





1) Have the potential to generate complaintsand concerns regarding interference withairpofts?

X X

X X2) Be located within the sphere of influence ofeither County operated airport?

3) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27e of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 52 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

27e-1,27e-2.The proposed project is located approximately 19 miles from the nearest airport and isnot anticipated to create any adverse impacts on airpofts. Therefore, the proposedproject will not result in any impact on aviation.

27e-3.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 27e of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 4.2.1-1, 4.2.1-13, and 4.2.1-14, andPolicies 4.2.2-10, and 4.2.2-11. Based on the above discussion provided for items 27e-1 and 27e-2, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for llem 27e of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.





N LS PS

27f. Transportation & Circulation - Harbor Facilities (Harbors)


52

Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect.*

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Depa rtment)*


1) lnvolve construction or an operation that willincrease the demand for commercial boattraffic and/or adjacent commercial boatfacilities?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27f of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


Page 53 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

27f-1.The proposed project site is located in Oak Park, which is approximately 26 miles fromthe nearest harbor. The proposed project will not involve any construction or anyoperation that will increase the demand for commercial boat traffic and/or adjacent boatfacilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on harbor facilities.

27f-2.The applicable General Plan Goal for ltem 27f of lhe lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines is Resources Goal 4.2.1-1. Based on the above discussion, the proposedproject will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem27f of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.




LS PS-M PS

279. Transportation & Circulation - Pipelines


53




1) Substantially interfere with, or compromisethe integrity or affect the operation of, anexisting pipeline?

X X




Page 54 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

279-1.There are no pipelines located on or near the project site. The proposed project will notsubstantially interfere with, or compromise the integrity or affect the operation of, anexisting pipeline. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on pipelines.

279-2.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 279 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goal 2.14.1-2, and Policy 2.14.2-4. Based onthe above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicableGeneral Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 27g of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines.

M itigation/Residual lmpact(s)




N LS PS N LS PS

28a. Water Supply - Quality (EHD)


54





requirements as set forth in Section 28a ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


X X


Page 55 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

28a-1,28a-2.The proposed project will not require a supply of domestic water. The proposed projectwill not have any project-specific or cumulative impacts on water quality.





LS PS-M PS


N N LS

28b. Water Supply - Quantity (WPD)


1) Have a permanent supply of water? X X

X X

2) Either individually or cumulatively whencombined with recently approved, current,and reasonably foreseeable probable futureprojects, introduce physical developmentthat will adversely affect the water supply -quantity of the hydrologic unit in which theproject site is located?

3) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 28b of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

55


Page 56 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

2Bb-1,28b-2.There is no water requ¡red for the operation of the proposed communication facility. Apermanent supply of water is not required.

2Bb-3.The proposed project is designed consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ltem 28b of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.



lmpact Discussion:

2Bc-1.Water supply (Fire flow) for fire suppression is not required by the VCFPD for thesubject facility.

28c-2.This project meets the goals and policies of the general plan


lssue (Responsible Department)* Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect**



N


PS N LS

28c. Water Supply - Fire FIow Requirements (VCFPD)


1) Meet the required fire flow? X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 28c of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


56

LS PS-M PS N LS PS

29a. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - lndividual Sewage Disposal Systems (EHD)


X1) Comply with applicable state and local

requirements as set forth in Section 29a ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 29a of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


Page57 of72

lmpact Discussion:

29a-1,29a-2.The proposed project will not requ¡re the use of an individual sewage disposal systemThe proposed project will not result in any impacts related to sewage disposal.



lmpact Discussion:

N

29b. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Sewage Collection/Treatment Facilities (EHD)



requirements as set forth in Section 29b ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 29b of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

29b-1,29b-2

57


Page 58 of 72

The proposed project will not require sewage disposal. The project will not have anyproject-specific or cumulative impacts to a sewage collection facility.



lmpact Discussion:

29c-1.As required by California Public Resources Code (PRC) 41701, Ventura County'sCountywide Siting Element (CSE), adopted in June 2001 and updated annually,confirms Ventura County has at least 15 years of disposal capacity available for wastegenerated by in-County projects. Because the County currently exceeds the minimumdisposal capacity required by state PRC, the proposed project will have less thansignificant project-specific impacts upon Ventura County's solid waste disposal capacity.

29c-2.Ventura County Ordinance 4421 requires all discretionary permit applicants whoseproposed project includes construction and/or demolition activities to reuse, salvage,recycle, or compost a minimum of 60% of the solid waste generated by their project.The IWMD's waste diversion program (Form B Recycling Plan/Form C Repoft) ensuresthis 60% diversion goal is met prior to issuance of a final zoning clearance for useinauguration or occupancy, consistent with the Ventura County General Plan's WasteTreatment & Disposal Facility Goals 4.4.1-1 and -2 and Policies 4.4.2-1, -2, -4, and -6.Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant project-specific impacts,and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative



N PS-M PS N LS PS-M

lssue

PS

29c. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Solid Waste Management (PWA)


1) Have a direct or indirect adverse effect on alandfill such that the project impairs thelandfill's disposal capacity in terms ofreducing its useful life to less than 15 years?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 29c of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

58


Page 59 of 72

impacts related to the Ventura County General Plan's goals and policies for solid wastedisposal capacity.



lmpact Discussion:

29d-1.The proposed project does not include a solid waste facility. The proposed project willnot have any project-specific or cumulative impacts relating to solid waste facilities.

29d-2.The proposed project does not include a solid waste facility. The proposed project willnot have any project-specific or cumulative impacts relating to solid waste facilities.






29d. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Solid Waste Facilities (EHD)


1) Comply with applicable state and localrequirements as set forth in Section 29d ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 29d of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X




30. Utilities

59



N LS PS N


LS PS-M PS


a) lndividually or cumulatively cause a

disruption or re-routing of an existing utilityfacility?

X X

b) lndividually or cumulatively increasedemand on a utility that results in expansionof an existing utility facility which has thepotential for secondary environmentalimpacts?

X X

X Xc) Be consistent with the applicable General


Verizon Wireless WCF, PL'15-0163lnitialStudy

Page 60 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

30a.The proposed project is not anticipated to individually or cumulatively cause a disruptionor re-routing of an exist¡ng utility facility. Therefore, the proposed project will have noimpact on utilities.

30b.The operation of the proposed facility will incrementally increase the demand forelectricity. This increased demand will be negligible and not result in the need for anexpansion of an existing utility facility. lmpacts will be less than significant.

30c.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 30 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goal 4.5.1, and Policies 4.5.2-1,4.5.2-2, and4.5.2-3, and Oak Park Area Plan Goal 4.4.1, and Policy 4.4.2. Based on the abovediscussion, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General PlanGoals and Policies for ltem 30 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.






60




31a. Flood Control FacilitiesMatercourses - Watershed Protection District (WPD)


1) Either directly or indirectly, impact floodcontrol facilities and watercourses byobstructing, impairing, diverting, impeding,or altering the characteristics of the flow ofwater, resulting in exposing adjacentproperty and the community to increasedrisk for flood hazards?

X X


X X

Verizon Wireless WCF, PL'l5-0163lnitial Study

Page 61 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

31a-1,3a-2.The proposed development is located approximately 1,619 feet westerly of MedeaCreek which is a Ventura County Watershed Protection District jurisdictional redlinechannel. No direct drainage connections to Medea Creek are proposed. lt is understoodthat impacts from increases in impervious area will be required to be mitigated to Lessthan Significant under conditions imposed by the Engineering Services Depañment,Development and lnspection Services. These conditions will be based on Appendix J ofthe Ventura County Building Code. Appendix J requires that runoff from the site will bereleased at no greater than the undeveloped flow rate and in such a manner as to notcause an adverse impact downstream in velocity or duration.

Watershed Protection District staff has determined that the project design (with thestandard conditions mentioned above) would not result in significant impacts on floodcontrol facilities and watercourses. lmpacts on red line channels under the jurisdiction ofthe Watershed Protection District will be less than significant.



lssue (Responsible Department)* Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect**


61


3lb. Flood Control FacilitiesMatercourses - Other Facilities (PWA)


1) Result in the possibility of deposition ofsediment and debris materials withinexisting channels and allied obstruction offlow?

X X

2) lmpact the capacity of the channel and thepotential for overflow during design stormconditions?

X X

X

3) Result in the potential for increased runoffand the effects on Areas of Special FloodHazard and regulatory channels both onand off site?

X

4) lnvolve an increase in flow to and fromnatural and man-made drainage channelsand facilities?

X X

5) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 3'1b of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

Verizon Wireless WCF PL15-0163lnitialStudy

Page 62 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

31 b-1, 3b-2, 3b-3, 3b-4.The proposed project involves the addition of only 20 square feet of impervious surfaceto an existing impervious area of about 5,000 square feet. Thus, the change in siterunofi volume is negligible. Project site runoff will be conveyed to an existing drainagesystem previously constructed for a water tank and access road. The proposed facilitywill not obstruct drainage as runoff will be similar to the present conditions. lmpacts willbe less than significant.

31b-5.The project will result in a negligible increase in flow due to the proposed addedimpervious surface areas (20 S.F.). There will be no adverse effects to Areas of SpecialFlood Hazard, regulatory channels, and natural and man-made channels. The projectwill be completed according to current codes and standards.

Mitigation/Residual lm pact(s)No mitigation required. Residual impacts will be less than significant.

62




32. Law EnforcemenUEmergency Services (Sheriff)


a) Have the potential to increase demand forlaw enforcement or emergency services?

X X


X X


Page 63 ol 72

lmpact Discussion:

32a.The proposed project is an unmanned communications facility and is not a type ofprojects that has the potential to increase demand for law enforcement or emergencypersonnel. The project site currently has adequate security measures with a locked gatealong the access road. The proposed project will not interfere with any law enforcementfacility and would not result in an increased demand for law enforcement facilities.Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on law enforcement/emergencyservices.

32b.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 30 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 4.7.1-1 through -7, and Policies 4.7.2-1through -5, and Oak Park Area Plan Goals 4.5.1-1 through -3, and Policies 4.5.2-1through -3. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent withthe applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 30 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines.






63




33a. Fire Protection Services - Distance and Response (VCFPD)


1) Be located in excess of five miles,measured from the apron of the fire stationto the structure or pad of the proposedstructure, from a full-time paid firedepartment?

X X

2) Require additional fire stations andpersonnel, given the estimated responsetime from the nearest full-time paid firedepartment to the project site?

X X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

33a-1.This project is located within 5 miles of an existing fire station. Thus, impacts on fireservices are less than significant.

33a-2.No new fire stations or personnel are required to serve the proposed project.

33a-3.This project meets the goals and policies of the general plan




Page 64 of 72




33b. Fire Protection Services - Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities (VCFPD)

64





1) Result in the need for additional personnel? X X

2) Magnitude or the distance from existingfacilities indicate that a new facility oradditional equipment will be required?

X X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

33b-1.No new personnel are requ¡red

33b-2.No new facilities or equipment are required

33b-3.This project meets the goals and policies of the general plan




Page 65 of 72

N

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible

N LS

34a. Education - Schools


65




'1) Substantially interfere with the operations ofan existing school facility?

X X


X X


Page 66 of 72

lmpact Discussion:

34a-1.The proposed project does not involve a residential use and will not generate newemployment opportunities that could result in an increase in population and acorresponding increase in demand for schools. Furthermore, the proposed project is notlocated adjacent to any school facilities and will not have any impact on school facilitiesor operat¡ons. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on EducationSchools.

34a-2.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 34a-2 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are. Resources Goal 4.9.'l-1, and Policies 4.9.2-1 and 4.9.2-2,Oak Park Area Plan Goals 4.6.1-1 through -3, and Policy 4.6.2. Based on the abovediscussion, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General PlanGoals and Policies for ltem 34a-2 of the lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.




LS


PS-M PS N PS

34b. Education - Public Libraries (Lib. Agency)


66


Page67 of72

lmpact Discussion:

34b-1.The proposed project will not intedere with the operation of any existing public libraryfacility. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on education - publiclibraries.

34b-2.The proposed project will not put additional demands on a public library facility which iscurrently deemed overcrowded. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact oneducation - public libraries.

34b-3.The proposed project will not limit the ability of individuals to access public libraryfacilities by private vehicle or alternative transportation modes. Therefore, the proposedproject will have no impact on education - public libraries.

34b-4.The proposed project will not limit the ability of individuals to access public libraryfacilities by private vehicle or alternative transportation modes. Therefore, the proposedproject will have no impact on education - public libraries.




1) Substantially interfere with the operations ofan existing public library facility?

X

2) Put additional demands on a public libraryfacility which is currently deemedovercrowded?

X

3) Limit the ability of individuals to accesspublic library facilities by private vehicle oralternative transportation modes?

X

4) ln combination with other approved projectsin its vicinity, cause a public library facility tobecome overcrowded?

X


X X

34b-5

67


Page 68 of 72

The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 34b of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 4.9.1-1 and 4.9.1-5, and Policy 4.9.2-3.Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent with theapplicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 34b of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact onPublic Libraries.



lmpact Discussion:

35a.

Project lmpact DegreeOf Effecti*

Gumulative lmpact'Degree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)*

N LS PS-M PS

35. Recreation Facilities (GSA)


a) Cause anrecreation,corridors?

increase in theparks, and/or

demand fortrails and X X

b) Cause a decrease in recreation, parks,and/or trails or corridors when measuredagainst the following standards:. Local Parks/Facilities - 5 acres of

developable land (less than 15% slope)per 1,000 population;

. Regional Parks/Facilities - 5 acres ofdevelopable land per 1,000 population;or,

. ReqionalTrails/Corridors - 2.5 miles per1,000 population?

X X

c) lmpede future development of RecreationParks/Facilities and/or RegionalTrails/Corridors?

X X

d) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 35 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

68


Page 69 of 72

The proposed project will not cause an increase in demand for recreation, parks, and/ortrails and corridors. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on recreationfacilities.

35b.The proposed project will not cause a decrease ¡n recreation, parks, and/or trails orcorridors. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on recreation facilities.

35c.The proposed project is not anticipated to impede future development of RecreationParks/Facilities and/or Regional Trails/Corridors. Therefore, the proposed project willhave no impact on recreation facilities.

35d.The applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 35 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines are: Resources Goals 4.10.1-1 through -7, and Policies 4.10.2-1 through -6, and Oak Park Area Plan Goals 4.7.1-1 through -5, and Policies 4.7.2-1through -3. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will be consistent withthe applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 35 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significantimpact on Recreation Facilities.



'Key to the agencies/departments that are responsible for the analysis of the items above:Airports - Department Of Airports AG. - Agricultural Department VCAPCD - Air Pollution Control DistrictEHD - Environmental Health Division VCFPD - Fire Protection District GSA - General Services AgencyHarbors - Harbor Department Lib. Agency - Library Services Agency Plng - Planning DivisionPWA - Public Works Agency Sheriff - Sheriff s Department WPD - Watershed Protection District

**Key to lmpact Degree of Effect:N - No lmpactLS - Less than Significant lmpactPS-M - Potentially Significant but Mitigable lmpactPS - Potentially Significant lmpact

69


Page 70 of 72

Section C - Mandatory Findings of Significance

Based on the information contained within Section B:

Yes

1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dropbelow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oranimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ofa rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate importantexamples of the major periods of California history orprehistory?

X

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, tothe disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (Ashort-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in arelatively brief, definitive period of time while long-termimpacts will endure well into the future).

X

3. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project areconsiderable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effect of other current projects, and theeffect of probable future projects. (Several projects mayhave relatively small individual impacts on two or moreresources, but the total of those impacts on the environmentis significant.)

X

4. Does the project have environmental effects that will causesubstantial adverse effects on human beings, either directlyor indirectly?

X

Findings Discussion:

1. As stated above in Section B, ltem 4, the proposed project will not result insignificant impacts on biological resources. No potentially significant impacts onbiological resources have been identified as a result of the proposed project.Therefore, the proposed project will not pose any threat to fish and wildlife, nor will ¡t

degrade the quality of the env¡ronment.

2. As stated above in Section A, the proposed project site has been prev¡ouslydeveloped with a municipal water tank that was subsequently replaced with twoother communications facilities. The proposed construction of a thirdcommunications facility on the site designed as a faux elm tree will not result in anysignificant impacts that would affect long term environmental goals.

3. As stated in Sections A and B, the proposed project will not create any impacts thatare individually limited but cumulat¡vely considerable.

70


Page71 of72

4. As stated in Section B, the proposed project does not involve the use of hazardousmaterials in a manner that pose any unusual risks. The proposed project would notresult in significant effects in the areas of noise, traffic circulation or safety, waterquantity or quality, and or hazardous waste. Therefore, the proposed project will notresult in any substantial adverse environmental effects, either directly or indirectly onhuman beings.

71

Section D - Determination of Environmental Document

Based on this initial evaluation

f-zt^ tzJ browalski, Case Planner Date

Attachments:

Attachment 1 - Location MapAttachment2 - Project PlansAttachment 3 - Site Photographs


Page72 of 72

IX] I find the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, anda Negative Declaration should be prepared.

t1 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 the mitigationmeasure(s) described in Section B of the lnitial Study will be applied to the project. AMitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared.

t1 I find the proposed project, individually and/or cumulatively, MAY have a significanteffect on the environment and an Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) is required.*

t1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least oneeffect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicablelegal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on theearlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental lmpact Report isrequired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed."

tl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzedadequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards,and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NegativeDeclaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon theproposed project, nothing further is required.

72

.@ aeru' Boo-o-4oo{t2s

t - Area Plans

r r Zoning

@IGIED

LegendPL15-0't 63

90

+County of Venturalnitial StudyPL15-0163

Attachment 1 - Location Map

oadsrm€ri fhh Mâpw.s @ard by rh6 Vonrura Cou¡ry R€þurcoknrymnl Aqônôy M.pping SóûÈ6s' GIS whkh I! d.dsndãndoFßrod sobt rd(hã@nEñbn6o, rh6County and rókt.dpud¡cryn*s rh6 counrydo6s no tuaranl lh€ áølræy ollhic

Ventura County,Callfo.n¡åRosurc€ UaMgem€nt ASncy

GIS Dovelopmðnt & MEpp¡ng SoNlc€ståp Crstd on 0t.28-2017

Thb æri¡l ¡måg€ry ¡s underthecopyilEhb of Plctomelry

Sourc€: Plctometry, JEn,. 2017 RMA9rsmFnd no ddsion nwkhg a rÉk ol€ønomic lo$ or phyielhjury !tuûË b mdo ¡n¡ôrbnø lhô.&n

ISSUE STATUS

A DCtl^ GTOUIS¡IIG¡ìETNG Iìq

èoNTILo

zÒ6

a=

\

tlrJLL

zoO

UFJÈOOÉ6;o<dOHv=úUÀoYa<:o

SHEflru:

TfTLE SHEEI

T-1

CONIFERMTX43 / BSCII

MACRO CELL EVOLUTION DESIGN1OO CONIFER CIRCLEOAK PARK, c.A91377

PROJECTTEAM

SEÆQUlsmTúRâ6rosM

PWil¡¡G

Éf^ cRdæ ñNmG rrc

6¡ !g cMñh 92424

WWCæRDINAIOR PrcF*SlM EXGI¡EER

ã2 ldf, ^E¡fr@ NE rN r.. suft rs

€&¿ * 9U4cNd: gw 6Éff PHdE (c..) ø-osrPsE (.Ð ¡Hæ Fr, (e¡ò) Ø.sr

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONüFoB UTW& EECflXWqü SRG

r2-0'EilrpvM æ Æa(r)ñ@zdÆæurÈNæft(r)R6zfrfffiñ¡mM(r) I Érzd ffi rffi / s M d& rNF dilmfr) R ErN Eæ $-o'¡B ¡¡¡]tN mnñ. (!dru)û2) Ns çtrzd sEm â fr Pm ¡ms¡2) Nû EZd hæ FR6r2 + [(2)882NffiüìtE

PROJECT SUMMARY

ÆPLIN/LESSEE

E¡0./rsNc¡M^EU401

AFPI I'ÂÚ,S RFÞRFSMAIGHffiME6M4E

PROPERÌ OWNER:Wrc SU FæiAId AD PM OffiFffi: r6e2wmE

ìW: (E03)srõ

ft&6rræffidüe r& d ers,

caNSIBUC!0NlNtOBtr$&ù6 0t cMUCffir r25 e f (Eomffi ¿ ÆNM æ €)

UTWTÐ ]@I!dBúE FÆW

REVDESCRIPlONSHEET

CONSTRUCTION ORAW|NGS

VERJZON WIRELESS SIGNATURE BLOCK

GENERAL CONTFÁ,CTOR NOTES

ñ nE ßmd N mrc 6 ñ 0ffiPAcr6

DRIVING DIRECTIONS

ffiffiffi$tutrbdow. *#-gSL

callmw¡¡o. Éætulgvn

CODE COMPLIANCE

. 20r! rutrN4 SU|WC @. &lJ ruûN4 Um4 CG. Ær! emth m @. ¡r! 4Fma ciÐ Euurc cooE

VICINITY MAP

I

*",,i þ.

County of VenturalnitìalStudyPL15-0163

Attachment 2 - Project Plans

II

,^6

\ñs

Èr

aÉE

Æ

ÐilGOEn

t¡ûæ

eH

LÍ

Døl9&I@

ÐÆßffiMtrmMmNUæt¡¡EM4UM4EæGdffiæc¡^@ÙMNMMqE6ffiE

Eru

IRACT NO. 2661M.R. 73 / 6s - 69 ì\LOT 66 LOTS 40-42

Af¡tæß-t61þ -E

MINæMBÆoffiftffi¡trffiM'@@3MmffiffiruEntrÙ6æ

COORDIME: Offi rrdiu'r

N6 f 8æN6

gø

COûFEN STEET_l

(PdE!1@

ÂssORS tmtnaÌÕN:

AdCH MK REMENCE

lÀÐffiñærlÑEK! Ídßffid8tußt¡MqMw-

Effi i.1æ!8¡4(M)BUætÐDElffirl

ru mfr tDEmtoN ÀP.N6Þ0-@-015:ffiMffi.Wruffinew,@ÆçK4árl.

æÛñ NOIS ÀP.N AÈG@-015:

MffiæEÐffiru*ñ,ffiruffiþd@,mÆFq4ãÈ

I MEM|EGþ|,ll.E@ffi¿tÉt8!ta.Æ4ffiffiB(frøÇWMÑ&@''qBñwûw)

ôsmmoclmnnuÞ*dHilÐ6&@@.Mt¿16ßEffinEras.Æ4cuw(ñ.@tuu,Æ4WW@WW*w8u@wwOÑNMDÑÑw@uñnûù@Mf fuMDNNd@ßwúña)ôAMtrffiDffiBülbBNmø4mMEÆffi.@MI+8AffiþæiltÆ1Ä

ru Ræfr IOEMFqIN AF N8m-0-Ð0-025:

ffiruffi,MruWhæ@Þ€Gw4æta

æilEF m ÀÞñ 6mi-&-02t

NmGrwrCffiOflr*oNøtryftøryÆEW@f,HtW¿ÇEÆædffidEoFftffiæçÐffi.ñE

Mùl@rf,@t&ÈæÆRsÆuÉ*mrRmlHmuEswqñþt4ffiffir@læÆffiwffiAffiffi.^ffiBq@@6m'Àrqf,grr4M$r,f ø4@

@[email protected]&o@@ßúw4tr¡I aÐEMEæFlJtlß@æa ls ¡q rz4æ4ruælEE @MMÙ@WEÑ@üw)2 AEMGlEDffiEÍE8@5Eã4imatffiEÞtlIAoúm@MñMúM)¡ AMl*ÉEffiffiæffidælæiæ@4rñÆrffin¡|lør€l:|lnæ(uñü.W@@NruÑm)Fd.qffi'qDM'sLæÉn*ffi.æmt44ßMOælllÆlt,m@

li¡.l ¡ffidffiÞÆinEÑfurctt æil.ÆMEðilNt7...æ{+c'BEC¿æwMN@,t ai@@ÞEqtaMld@MqffiglEæ.alimßElwß&r@r{rø4@iæ@EMúE

E Dffi@h@ffirEN oMhON APN. m-È€0-0ã:uMffieffi9lr&ÐiÉffiq@æc@

POR. 'IRACT

A.PlL&O.GG

LOTS 53-35

ffiC

I{æFTDENT

ËE eFOR Der¡t

POR. 'IRACT "P"ÆxmOG

ËN6mffiHJrddEElweæt.qZAF¿æçHmffi.SIET

@

RANCHO SIMIM.R.3/7

TRACT NO. 2601tt.R. 72 / 18-22

LOT 61

CqEIÁEA1ì{@-1õ) ËiË

I

PARCEL MAPP.M.B. 11 / J

LOT 62

LOT 63

-\-_l

\\

ærerl¡É^lffi-4)

f

POR. 'ÍRACT ,,P"

AttaÃÞÞs

MOfr*6@ffiuÊ

EGEND:

ccta*t{^EA(Þxd+lHr bQmunæanE4 OSRINON ÀP.N.&0-0-@-015:[wdn&ffiluEf,rudñd@stdaRñÆM

æølwE1lÈ!.ÆãW@f,s4¿E12lìüã14¡@6@æ(¡¡¡¡4rfÉæç$øm@SMwdEmffi&@@ffiEffirffiHüTtgtlEãgErc'næ!'W6æEDmMÈf dffis0trw6ffitrEffi6^t*MffiMut4ÉtNlm^N6f @E.AMEtEffi6$ææsD2#tFffimrffiYmffi{ff$ffitl@^mÆdræ@aÆffif tß@lrcMESffim@asE:Ègff2ff5ñ16@ffiffi@EMEEÉrutrCffi

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

_ _ _____-!q¿r4-__-&ú_

MMçlFFçMNrffidÑ*MmEcc¡.48Es@rdrtÆt cE.æGsffi.8ÞÆluÆf

POR. LOT 47a.PÀ 2attü¡€t

FS*lw?.FMmt!49'E@EdEffiñf @úNtw&gaÃw @d qr,*arffiat tâÆcq@t$@ìrEtf:HBrÉrf 6rÉ@ffiæEilffiffi4@llæ æ þm 1ø2a' ú 6r¡tE;æftW€Sl'Ws @ffiftffi ra4ÚE2at-ilEffiftEHstz'KÞ@lffiftEnrræF!u-rsEffiftffi!f6E E¡¡TEEftMYUEøE N FÞìÞDtr9ÛflEffiÐffiM.@ß4 røAIü9,Æqffi@GÐosffiMEþæEYEftffiC{EEIOISEEÐffi1ftf tKY¡ffirftgns4V'NwEEÈffiçMæfffiMmllGËñxÉÞÈffiæ4æsY4rø.rBgær8@@þd@almta@t&{ßAD¡@ÆUGGN¡RffiRADlmgD&mþffissEffitffiffiÆffidilEAffiffi.^ffi4i@mm-À1q¡mxÍ4MÉt.É@@

EælAllMt66t6rruG6ÆMÑúqSþE-mlãþEsÆßffiÞE@ffi.^@qüÞæglEda14xHrzie4m@&ffiÞMq@6EE&ffidEffidSlÆ[ÑK68ffÆlllæDÁ@G&EÚÉ!æGSNß

8EE S+ETæFOR gIEDETAI¡

]RACT NO. 33401M.B. 1045 / 66 - 70

t\IRACT NO. 33403M.B. 960 / 33 - 3s

@NÉoffi

E]wMl,wtlMruEM

.&W-O_ MWãG

Q81wa mdEl¡@Erlmq

¡ lmtut

üE OF SUffi:ûE ra ærs

WNG PÆ IAEM:

ÈffiþffidÉlEUE&0E¡Næ'qæruENÞru(+/-)ÆdYþdÉ4ErËffi. EÆMÞßAæÑNrugÉlEE I

kat

ffiffiPm

ÆED tU iltu

.@

-!!-ut!

O¡EÃ:&

2

8æAEâEEL^ND gJRVEllllG ¿. MAPPINGJ6

^MY ^4 $E ñ

6^rsc@ øra $r-r9 fr€

\,zlêrI'7gn**t*156 $D Wil AE4tuttc b' tiL trffi

nwE, * 92618PfidE (91e) 2F?m

üÉffmß

A DRTÀGTOUPS¡NGtNrn¡NG. tNq

ffire

æEJG

wsm:

WUruÛM

CONIFER

SW

!E ÐNÑ1OO CONIFR ORüI

OÂK PffiK, CA 91J'

UE

L-l

OUH ftr

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

OG TÙE6rffi

10F2

\\

qs &7v_

\' E"_

-r+ srr

dsI

\

t-

s

4

\

{-

q

-*@

,*

J

þ{

Èf

UGEND:

Æ

onñoßú0aû&

es

lÍrc

EEE

nEUq

&t

c

Q@ONMr@8Iffid

-+- ffit¡ ffivur

\

I

////_-1

Ì

I

I

ßmffi@Eilßæffia¡q@EEìañE.mffiæ*ffi

@MÉqrd6

UMMWNlMæur69GEf@E]tÆluMUwBUwruuw vufÊM

tFo,

I

---aI

I

bãtb. *¡-il

æESGETC-'

Md o&ftptN

Mtum.

D^E/tt:

dGf,

2

AMFEIIELAND SJRIîÍNG & MAPPING

rs ñ^Y ^Eq

Ðm irc'qffi^ø

¡a st-rr m

\.-leriTg¡t*^*rs6 ilD Nn

^ÉEUUINC l' 131 ffitruNE il 926t8

ÈmE (9ß) 2m-m0

AËOMWffi

Dt[lÀGIOU?SutcÌt$rlllc. tNq

ffiffi*2 kil

^Á.q 92614

æEJOB I IIWM

CONIFER

ffiW

mmlM MIFff üRtrofi Pß, cA grJ77

w¡É

DAE

últe/u

IOPOCRAPHIC SURVEY

M XAÉ0rffi

c-220F2

ISSUE STATUS

^ 3P",ffi<C GE

æqÆKagr4

è

RIIL

9

d

E9zsèt

ãE

ÉlrJTL

zoO

UtsJN

o<Éou -_-q=

oY3A

SETNE:

OVERALL SÍTEPI-AN

A-1

NOTES:

@æucmrwfòmc¡rsnlmmrur¡m

@mcæmo.@mcruuxue@mcwt@mcm@mcuuc@ ænc rea

@[email protected]ùwwqu¡mnPHüD&ffi¡T- PMT NE

A Nfl8U t6ffidN[ruftGu/t\9 Rr¡rc r/ 5'-d sE @[ (flffi-o' m ¡¡P HH

DffiÆ$)

AÌ¡Im: Nil @NDUtr PAW^ßSWN NruDE IÑUIOI OFÆRæRAE sZE ND ME trDrcE OR PUI æX6, VXæFruFÐ. frfrR M NfrgEOnruY DPrm.

COìrl¡lol{AEA(A.P.N. 80O-0-l 9O-1 55\ THROUGH -285)

-?5TO -155

POR. 'IRACT "P"

A.PJ{80æ{0(HXl5Aflt80ÉÉo-Æ10-245

/¿/í/A/s

,,$¡6tìea- . är__'IRACT NO. 2601

i

sl

M.R. 72 / 18-22-T--o

_tÈrh

flEI

LOT 61

COMMON AFEARANCHO SIMI

M.R.3/7 o-- \(A.P.N.800-0-150-0r5

THRoUGH -18s)

X A-P¡tmo{-¡l0H)2s

\\

àE\

\ oLOT 62

PARCEL MAP *\COMi¡|ON AEA

(A.P.N. 8OO-0-1 60-01 5THROUGH -2Js)P.M.B 11 / 3

)PARCEL '1

AfN æO-O-€O-û25 ,)!t.Þl;ll

/-POR. TRACT

.,P.,

APNæF.4Off)É

þtë,/

I

t'I

I

le

iFI

f/LUI bJ

POR, IRACT "P,AfN.&@A0-ß5

COtl¡Ot{ AEA(A.P.N. 800-0-1 70-01 5

THROUGH -195)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _!q11!g_ _ _ __199úPOR. LOT 47 Af¡t 2056--0538-

NEì^' VERIZON WRELESSEÚP!ilT trm

l3l**,gi itffÏl

_ LE!!EÀ ç.ou-!¡L!¡LE-LOS AruS COUNry ÙNE

OIERAI I SITF PI AN EFFìI_ 1,.#_d

ISSUE STATUS

'\ 3.H.àP'F<C ruiri-esEÉq6f

E@ftHrr-d

è

RIILI

ú99ããð--

=EI

É.l.UIL2oO

5ÈÉ. E;o<do#Y-=toY9<:o

ENLARGEDSIlE PLAN

A-1.11

NOTES:

O nry wm ure wE m ro'x rz (1æ sE) Âffi rc- qq A-2 Fm rx@ PW-

@ rn azu rre r'a6 rdruÂ itr w$ fln6 PoE Nur Muc u/c runc tr/ 5'-o'v trÉ rutr (rr204fi) rnue* rw ox M RUN M EUmÌ w @- rc vM m!¡^EY 1d.

O r* qcq ræ æü @ù[ RùnNc u/c ruÌrc tr/ 5 -o-- mE ruE (*r6o-d s r-r rm nnurrix¡

@ urwo

@mæru@mmruxæ@meww*amEYotm@uwemmwonm@tmnmmvurarm@awnmmruBqilmm@uwwrutmuotm@ mvrnrrro oþil!ryoum

@tmmw@mtarzrmrou@ umæxe rowrvom@mæcrruar@wrcum@mmr@mm.@mmwrm

@momroæsx&rÐdHfl¿@mwwerur.@mmrrue@mrrwnr@mrremroermæ(ã mrc¡¡wrem DNmsu fteqm aD Pffiv ffitmÆ

@mw@rcrm@mnre@mnwmrromdi-ruE

@mm@mm

q

)ls-_

@I

ô

---< \I

@ EZd mN rÆ 0m tflc umil I

---1^.\t \I

II

NEW VERIZON WRELESStwqttrmSFMSEMdgtrT

^-2

1æ$[WÆU

ENLARGED SIÏE PLAN æ1-=t.w_

ISSUE STATUS

.^, Dttt^Grouñt! HawrRaC ruE

Èw6trqg{@lES*Hrrð

PROPdEIÑ NFORSTdåiffifrry#åH."-

i-:

.F äsLzã9n

3ÈcroÈã;O4ÉOËÉ6{oYgó

ÉuJLLzoo

Z SlqmE: lENLARGED SITE PLAN.

FUEL MODIFICATIONPLAN

A-1.2IsGfEffi

NOTES:

O rer mzo w¡æ æ Æq 12 x rd (læ sr) Rm rc- $F

^-2 Fm FÀ@ M-

@romururHtrrdÐilsÆErlm/l xfl EEd nRE ffi @tT R@Uc u/c runG r/ 5-dt/ w run (¡ræ'-o')

@ rn w'zo rnæ ou qu RW M Eümr w Æa- m !dÐ ¡m[{¡EY td-

fò Nil m {6 @ cMT RmG u/c rutrc r/ 5'-o'v sæ ReE (+rw-d E ^-1

FF WW^UI@*-@amcærcu.@ uwcru urne@ awo:rumrnm erotm

@ uwc:omeroms

@amxctwvurnm@ aotcumælærorm@uwcwcrumønm@ awe vurmromRlilom@awcww@ ano mrr ø rn rro@ arro rf m roru noms

@moæcrrw.@umcmmum@ momere,ocm m@uwcru,@ unc ucnur rmn

@uwoumrummmqH-ru@ mctmrsrmz@umcruru.@ uwc rruw.

@ urxcrem roavom(1) um¡cmqrmnnmq mffi NpKv qmÍffiÆ.

@asncsæ@ ror um

@ anosw.

@ume rmæxruEdHm

@uwcm@uwcm/íÀwqmNrÆmffi6IrItxMv ffi ,22uFos2{

NOE-UA ÀLL fiASS ND BRÙ$ WTINS' F PRUCÍS MONOÈM ÀNDETFMdT A@ FOOFRINÍ 8ME ÈEsTÆl 6 dmcnoN_ü SRCruRES IO BE æNMUCEOD IEET HøMUS ffiE MS4IUING C@E REOUIRilENE

!6|FCA¡ON RÐrUs (JO'-O)

I

)s-_

ruEL rOrtrCAlN R&US (Jo'-d)

\---a

\

II

I

ìI

T

ENLARGED SITE PIiÄ¡¡. FUEL MODIFICÂIIOI{ PLÀN

NOTES:

@ r*wm ræw m rd r rz 020 st.) {t / úd N u'x-ÐÉ@ ru wøo nræ x Hq !ü@ô EÍ Ezd mtE PoE cM[ MîNc u/G rurNo V 5dv u ME (rr20'-0').

o ils E[d flRß æAX M Fû d ÉMml UÆ Æs fO

@ wwo næ r Eq d¡N u( acÊ

@ ruwem uæl w BY7 Hft ru ulx oou c^E

O Nd Bd t6 EùnûTdm ruE ff w dffi P&

@ rawao ræ m rmu@mrmeurumru@ume uwfi) w mm mæ æ ru ffi tïÍ yaory qe^m rn

^ y

- cMqEMIMTMEflWq6ffiPD

@ ru wu næ ¡2) PNÈ NmilÆ (4) FB w

@amcw@mcrm@mcw@amoumromvuTilom@mcwrutmwoms@mcemcerw.@ame ru1un4lî) amcæwc¡m En¡mn @u{DPR mqmv^6

úù rs øzq rc (rz) trús f,r p ufip¡( (1) m ffi m 8E

- tdmBmwaBN^mNtcxflmrÀ@)swu rnæ(z) ¡^wrw qauuMrsþNft

6l Er 8n ffim f,8n ffiT runflc u/0 ruM v 5-0'vw M (rrÉ-d s ^-l

Ffi cdMritx).

@wmn rmroruwß-ormtm

@wmn rmrm mrw

EOUIPMENT & ANTENNA LAYOUT

ISSUE STATUS

D¡UAGTOUTSotdt€ùìG. lltq

è

RTIL

9

ú

=tèf

1è

uñJÈood5o<dOË¿éfov3f

úulLLzoO

EqUIPMENT &ANTENNAI-AYOUT

A-2

ISSUE STATUS

¡\ BHàP,,ËaCFHÉGåÚ¡

rFNÈlg17-S

TIL¡I

5ãðú

=EI

uñÉ. dÞtrJ *9r.L ;öZ. EÉo ÞrOEã

sffiru:

NORÌH A EÂSTELEVATIONS

A-32

ru

sÆ

ilwdotffi 184. B TO

frwüffi(rz)P@*m@Es€Â-2m wffffimNusruru6

^---_B:õ'ÀdL -@mf@s(2)RrA

MÞ d MNU ruI AIÚ NEIPNÈIW

WffiüBZqtr@MNÆ A----ã:õ-rch-E

mf fficlru're ^-----tltrÀd -----V

mfl

NSmEm

NS(M

üsrcumv&[iloffiuÈmmmfl0üßtÈil6mtowt

NilEU ffi (2) NW nffiy'æü ru nW (SJuw/EmTÆúFmuffiilw/Þ&ffiß uM.

NORTH ELEVAÏON ffiNfl BZü ffi6 (14 P0tr AmÆ ({)ESræffir0gA-2ü&wuffM

BtrmTffiS

rflfr4rc(2)ilwsrumil¡l¡tMtd|t!44DPMAEN

hfruru8Yffirum8

@6ElüffiWUmmS ^$ã-Àõi-

-

-

aÞf môffim6Vt¡?-Àci- -

-

ffim0mBm.tffiflffiry0]E WffiTffi

uoxE8mwí2) ñJS rü p wÅ0( (1) Pa ffi D 8E

MA[ruCffEADù

ffiÄycMrrutrTNSWhGMPÆ. E

mNes mùwwd rffi (2) ffio m/oa mÉ M (161mfl úER^WÆAffi Æú UP rc F8 UW/PAû ABNß ¡10@

dEÐffmÆ^

rflNÉ trftmDYUTil

.t

tffimvMtw

EAST ELEVANON Fæ

' ISSUE STATUS .

DlUÀcroul6DlcÙtElle ltc

IILI9Eã31é

=EI

t dÞ

He3zEÉonrOéã

slqrßE:

SOUTH & WESTELEVATIONS

A42#

Nil 6Zd td-o't

ilfr rcNru¡NTSRE

DFBzdtn6ururu ^- ---E:f ÀAL-

ttrcEElM M 6E ff EZü Tffi NUNÆ A__-----'-J1'

ìEr 82fr trN (2) EeRñffird@emffiPo

RÚS8¡tr^O( m rc8ETom

5ø8ffiN

m0qtrEm6p)R^ffim^IUTBRDW

PMMN

ffi@

ffiffi6Dcro

^Nil@NrcISstaæt æ lI&rcR Hr6

üEilNilBMP[ Æ8É

SOUTH ELEVATION

w@of,RNH'ffiH@ilWrtm

RWZdffi(12)PÆmNA(1)Egffi nm D w ^-z

Ffi ÆN¡A uur

Emtrrd-o'.

ADGWilffi¡M¡MSçg.ì-1ã'- -

^Þ6WdruSMMV-!zd-À-L- -

ARÆ @EÚ Wd 1¡É6 NEßVr-J rÊl

-

ã

mùmwE0f6(12)msffi[8mK(1)ESmDr¡qmMWABNAMI6RABAiilEzemæ@xÞe¡m^

EZdHffi6 @NffiISa AWÀ E9 IADEY æ dAN

fril^tGM0@totrIAK d Til d@ PÆ

ffiMtT@SW0m Nrcffi

^NSCWvfrãú.r -ffiUWþYUTflOTß

ItrN/HB I

ilNuaüENUE i itttlmc|WD

-

I

YuTilo]E L______l

ìil EZfl A6wmrume

WEST ELIVATION Fæ

Ë*

View from Conifer Street. Existing facilities (adjacent to proposed site) outlined in center

View from Conifer Circle. Existing facility (adjacent to proposed site) outlined in center

County of Venturalnitial StudyPL't5-0163

Attachment 3 - Site Photographs

county of ventura - docs.vcrma.org · three sectors for a total oi 12 antennas). each sector will...

Documents