Item2_attachmen_1.pdf

Attachment 7

City of Grover Beach

201 South Third Street Cell Tower Project

Draft

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

October 2011

201 South Third Street Cell Tower Project Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for: City of Grover Beach 154 South Eighth Street Grover Beach, CA 93433 Contact: Bruce Buckingham

Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

October 2011

This report is printed on 50% recycled paper.

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Introduction Legal Authority and Environmental Determination ................................................................................... 1 Evaluation of Possible Environmental Impacts and Significance Determination ................................... 2

Initial Study Project Title ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Person and Phone Number ............................................................................................................... 3 Project Applicant ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Description of Project ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required ........................................................................ 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................................. 9 Determination .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Evaluation of Environmetal Impacts ............................................................................................................ 11 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Agriculture and Forest Resources ..................................................................................................... 13 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 16 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 17 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 18 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 19 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................... 20 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 23 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................... 24 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................... 25 Noise ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Population and Housing..................................................................................................................... 28 Public Services...................................................................................................................................... 28 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 29 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................. 30 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................. 31 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

Tables Table 1 Table 2

Construction Emissions ....................................................................................................... 15 Anticipated Maximum Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Location ........................... 27

i

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

Regional Location ................................................................................................................... 4 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................... 5 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 7 East Elevation .......................................................................................................................... 8

Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

Site Photos and Visual Simulation Air Quality Analysis Radio Frequency Base Station Evaluation

ii

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTRODUCTION LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and relevant provisions of CEQA, as amended. Initial Study. Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an Initial Study as the proper preliminary method of analyzing the potential environmental consequences of a project. The purposes of an Initial Study are: (1) To provide the Lead Agency with the necessary information to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or a Negative Declaration, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Exemption; (2) To enable the Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts, thus avoiding the need to prepare an EIR; and (3) To provide sufficient technical analysis of the environmental effects of a project to permit a judgment to be made by the Lead Agency, based on the record as a whole, that the environmental effects of a project have been adequately mitigated or require further in-depth study in an EIR. Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a public agency shall prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: (a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment; or (b) The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and 2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. An IS-MND may be used to satisfy the requirements of CEQA when a proposed project would have no significant unmitigable effects on the environment. As discussed further in subsequent sections of this document, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant effects on the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance with the mitigation measures included herein.

1

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION The following sections of this IS-MND provide discussions of the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for specific environmental issue areas that have been identified on the CEQA Initial Study Checklist. For each environmental issue area, potential effects are evaluated. A “significant effect” is defined by Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by a project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”

2

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

INITIAL STUDY PROJECT TITLE 201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Grover Beach 154 South Eighth Street Grover Beach, CA 93433

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Bruce Buckingham, Community Development Director City of Grover Beach (805) 473-4520 [email protected]

PROJECT APPLICANT Verizon Wireless 2785 Mitchell Drive, BLDG 9 Walnut Creek, CA 94598

PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project would be located on an approximately 0.53-acre parcel, located at 202 South 3rd Street (APNs 060-213-021), north of the intersection of South 3rd Street and Long Branch Avenue, within the City of Grover Beach (refer to Figure 1). The project site is an approximately 588 square foot area located in the southeast portion of the parcel, as shown in Figure 2. The property is bordered by Rockaway Avenue to the north, a sanitation service facility to the west, 3rd Street to the east, and Long Branch Avenue and a sanitation service facility to the south. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial and the zoning is Coastal Industrial (C-I). While the City Council has amended the Land Use Element and changed the land use designation for the project site to Visitor Serving-Mixed Use, the amendment is pending approval by the California Coastal Commission. Land uses surrounding the project site are designated Visitor Serving-Mixed Use to the north and west, and Industrial to the south and east. Access to the site is via Rockaway Avenue or 3rd Street. The subject parcel is currently developed with an industrial warehouse, used as a roofing business, and there are several recreational vehicles currently parked on the project site. The project site does not contain major vegetation or trees and is primarily surrounded by industrial uses, including an auto repair shop to the east and a sanitation service facility to the south and west. Several single-family residences are located near the project site, approximately 325 feet to the north and 150 feet to the south. 3

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

_ ^ PACIFIC OCEAN

0

0.25

0.5

Scale in M iles

Map images copyright © 2011 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Big Sur

Tulare Lockwood

_ ^

Project Location

±

Avenal

Basemap Source: ESRI Data, 2004, and USGS/CDFG, 2002.

±

PACIFIC OC EA N

Regional Location

Grover Beach

_ ^

Maricopa

Guadalupe

Santa Ynez

Figure 1 City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

S 3rd St

Rockaway Ave

. R.R U.P . Longbranc h Ave

Hig h wa y1

Project Site 0

50

100

Scale in Feet

±

Bing Maps Aerial: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers.

Project Location

Figure 2

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed project includes installation of a cellular antenna structure, consisting of three antennas per sector with three sectors, for a total of nine antennas. The antennas would be stacked and mounted on a 61-foot-high monopine on a one-foot-high pad, for a total height of 62 feet. The monopole would be designed to accommodate the collocation of two additional wireless providers. The monopine is a structure used to conceal large antennas while giving the appearance of a natural tree to blend with the surrounding environment. In addition, antenna “socks” would be installed to further screen the antennas. The proposed project would also include a 30kilowatt, 210 gallon (2.4 liter) diesel tank generator, which would serve as a back-up energy source in the event of a power outage. The diesel generator and the monopine would be mounted on a new, concrete cell block pad with an area of 588 square feet. In addition to the back-up generator, several electrical equipment cabinets would also be located on the concrete pad. An equipment sunscreen would be installed to shade the equipment cabinets. The project site plan is depicted in Figure 3 and the east facing elevation, which would be visible from South 3rd Street, is shown in Figure 4. Operation of the proposed project would consist of wireless radio transmissions for cellular phones, including voice and data transmission. The facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Approximately one site visit per month would be required for a routine maintenance check on the facility. Construction of the proposed project would require a crane to erect the monopine, a cement truck to lay the concrete pad, and worker vehicles. While no grading would be required, the proposed project would include minor trenching of approximately 626 square feet for utility lines. Including the construction area, the total area of disturbance would be approximately 1,214 square feet. Ground disturbing activities would last approximately three to five days, and the total construction period would be completed in approximately two weeks. The proposed project would require City approval of a Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. The Use Permit would allow the use of the antenna in the Coastal-Industrial zone, as well as an increase in the allowable height to 62 feet.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of the proposed project are as follows: To increase cellular reception in the project area. To construct an antenna tower using a monopine to create a natural appearance.

OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED Approval of the proposed project is at the discretion of the City of Grover Beach, which is the lead agency. The project would require Planning Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit.

6

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

0

Source: Verizon Wireless, June 2011.

Site Plan

6

12 Feet

Figure 3 City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

0

Source: Verizon Wireless, June 2011.

East Elevation

6

12 Feet

Figure 4 City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use/Planning Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic

Agriculture and Forest Resources Cultural Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/Service Systems

9

Air Quality Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

AESTHETICS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X X X X

a, c. The existing visual character of the project area consists primarily of industrial uses, such as the on-site roofing warehouse and adjacent sanitation facilities and auto repair shop. There are several residences located on industrial-zoned lots in the project area, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor lies approximately 140 feet to the west of the project site. Site photos of the existing project site are in Appendix A. Views in the project area are generally limited by existing industrial urban development and surrounding vegetation. The proposed project consists of the installation of a 62-foot-high cell tower monopine located on an industrial-zoned parcel within the Coastal Zone. The Grover Beach Scenic Routes Element identifies Highway 1 and Grand Avenue as Scenic Routes within the city. The proposed project would be visible momentarily to travelers along Grand Avenue as they pass South 3rd Street. Views of the proposed project would also be available intermittently along Highway 1 for travelers looking east. Scenic views along this corridor primarily fall to the west, where the dunes and ocean are frequently visible. In the project vicinity, eastern views along Highway 1 are characterized by landscaped screening and intermittent views of a recreational vehicle camping facility and industrial development. The monopine would mimic the natural appearance of a tree in this area, which would partially blend with views of adjacent trees and substantially reduce the visual intrusiveness of the project (refer to the visual simulations of the project in Appendix A). The height of the proposed monopine would be approximately 10 feet shorter in height than an existing tree located across the street. Therefore, the monopine would be similar in size and scale to existing trees in the area. According to the City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), the project site falls under Visual Resource Area 7, which states that the view quality in this area is negligible due to the topography of the land and the presence of trees and industrial buildings blocking views of the dunes. However, LCP policies established for this Visual Resource Area include: 1. Future industrial developments here shall be required to meet precise landscaping and design requirements. 2. Future developments shall not be permitted to further obstruct views of the dunes from adjacent inland areas.

11

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

While the proposed project does not include any landscaping, it would mimic the appearance of a natural tree on a site that currently lacks landscaping or vegetation. The existing industrial development would remain on the subject parcel, and the proposed facilities would be visually compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project would also comply with existing landscaping standards set forth in the City Municipal Code for the Coastal-Industrial (C-I) Zone. In addition, the project’s narrow profile and proximity and similar scale to existing trees located across 3rd Street would minimize the obstruction of views from inland areas. Other proposed facilities, including equipment cabinets, would be visually compatible with surrounding industrial development, and would not block views of scenic resources. The project site is zoned C-I and is located in the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Act requires that development in the Coastal Zone, be located and designed to minimize the alteration of natural land forms and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas (Public Resources Code Section 30251). Additionally, “permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views along the ocean, to minimize the alteration of land forms, [and] to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.” The proposed project would be consistent with the Coastal Act by not obstructing views along the ocean, minimizing the alteration of land forms, and being visually compatible with the character of the area by mimicking the appearance of a natural tree. Impacts on scenic vistas and visual character would be less than significant. b. Although Highway 1 is considered an “Eligible State Scenic Highway”, there are no designated State Scenic Highways in the project area. Furthermore, the project would not affect trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, as no such resources are located on the project site. Therefore, no impact would result. d. Existing sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include lighting spillover from existing streetlights and vehicle headlights traveling along Rockaway Avenue and 3rd Street. The proposed project would not include any lighting. The presence of fabricated materials may produce some glare in the project area or for drivers along nearby roadways. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES-1 would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures AES-1

Glare-reducing Materials. The proposed monopine shall be constructed with or be covered by glare-reducing materials, such as non-reflective and earth-tone colored paint. The building materials shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.

12

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – 1

Would the project :

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X

X X

1. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

a-b, e. The project site is zoned Coastal Industrial and does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2008). The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land (2008). The project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract as there is no farmland present on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c-d. The project site is zoned Coastal Industrial and is currently developed with an industrial warehouse. There is no forestland or timberland on the project. The project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur.

13

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

AIR QUALITY - Would the project1:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X X

X

X X

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations

The City of Grover Beach is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB). State air quality oversight for the basin is provided by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). The air basin is in non-attainment for the 24-hour state standard for particulate matter (PM10) and the eight hour state standard for ozone (O3). The regional 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) prepared by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) addresses the attainment and maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB). a. The consistency of a proposed project with the CAP is based on whether the proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the 2001 CAP. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips beyond a monthly maintenance check. Although the project includes a diesel generator, it would only be used as a back-up power supply, and would therefore produce negligible emissions. No other emissions would be associated with the operation of the proposed project. Construction-related ground disturbance would last approximately 3-5 days and the total construction period would occur in two weeks. Construction activities would not produce emissions that would exceed SLOACPD construction thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2001 CAP, and impacts would be less than significant. b, c. The proposed project would include the installation of a cellular antenna tower on an existing industrial site. Operational emissions generated would be limited to one vehicle trip per month for project site maintenance. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate substantial operational or long-term emissions. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary emissions associated with construction equipment. Construction emissions generated by the proposed project were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 v.9.2.4 air quality model. The SLOAPCD’s approach to analysis of construction emissions is to require mitigation for any project with emissions in 14

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

excess of 137 lbs/day or 2.5 tons/quarter of ozone precursors (ROG + NOX), 7 lbs/day or 0.13 tons/quarter of diesel particulate matter (DPM), or 2.5 tons/quarter of particulate matter (PM10) dust. Maximum daily and quarterly emissions are shown in Table 1 (see Appendix B for full URBEMIS results). Table 1 Construction Emissions

Maximum running quarterly emissions SLOAPCD running quarterly Threshold Maximum daily emissions SLOAPCD daily threshold 1

Ozone Precursors (ROG + NOX) 0.1 tons/quarter

DPM1

PM10 dust

0.01 tons/quarter

0.0 tons/quarter

2.5 tons/quarter

0.13 tons/quarter

2.5 tons/quarter

39.25 lbs/day 137 lbs/day

2.19 lbs/day 7 lbs/day

0.01 lbs/day n/a

PM10 Exhaust from the URBEMIS 2007 model combined annual emissions results. Note that the construction period is less than two weeks; therefore total emissions would occur in less than one quarter. Source: Unmitigated winter and combined annual emissions generated from URBEMIS 2007 for Windows 9.2.4 (see Appendix B for full URBEMIS model results).

As shown in Table 1, construction emissions based on 1,500 square feet of disturbed land would be below both daily and quarterly thresholds set by SLOAPCD. As discussed above, both operational and construction emissions generated by the proposed project would be minimal. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any air quality standards or cumulatively contribute to the net increase of PM10 or ozone in the region. Impacts would be less than significant. d. According to the SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook (2009), sensitive receptors are uses that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The nearest sensitive receptors include a recreational vehicle park, approximately 250 feet southwest of the project site and single-family residences, located approximately 325 feet north and 150 feet south of the project site. While construction would take place within the vicinity of sensitive receptors, construction emissions would be well below SLOAPCD quarterly and daily thresholds. In addition, the proposed construction period would be brief, lasting less than two weeks, with ground-disturbing activities lasting only three to five days. Therefore, the small amount of emissions generated and the short duration of the construction period would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operational emissions would be limited to infrequent maintenance vehicle trips and emergency operation of a back-up generator, both of which would produce negligible emissions. Impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. e. The proposed project includes the installation of a cellular tower on an existing industrial site. The project would not generate any objectionable odors. No impact would result.

15

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

X

a. There is no existing vegetation on the project site and the project would not involve the removal of vegetation. However, construction activities, such as trenching, could result in ground vibrations that may disturb nesting birds in trees located across the street to the east. Proposed ground disturbance activities would occur within 50 feet of the off-site trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b, c. The project site does not contain any riparian or sensitive natural community. However, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper (2010), there is a freshwater forested/shrub wetland area approximately 0.13 miles west of the project site. The proposed project would not include any operational or construction activities that would affect the wetland area, such as increased traffic or grading. Furthermore, the wetland area is separated from the proposed project by intervening urban uses, including an adjacent parcel that provides sanitation services, as well as the Union Pacific Railroad line. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. The project site is an existing industrial parcel, which does not support wildlife movement and does not contain migratory corridors. Therefore, the proposed project would not restrict regional wildlife movement or wildlife migration patterns. No impact would occur.

16

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

e. Due to the absence of biological resources on the project site, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies adopted for the protection biological resources. No impact would occur. f. The project site is not located within an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1

Ground Disturbance Timing for Nesting Birds. To avoid impacts to nesting bird species or birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all ground disturbing activities conducted between February 1 and September 1 must be preceded by a pre-construction survey for active nests, to be conducted by a qualified biologist. This survey should be conducted within two weeks prior to any construction activities. The purpose of this survey is to determine the presence or absence of nests in an area to be potentially disturbed. If nests are found, a buffer ranging in size from 75 to 200 feet, depending upon the species and as determined by a qualified biologist, shall be demarcated with bright orange construction fencing. No ground disturbing or other construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for ground disturbing activities occurring between September 2 and January 31.

CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X X X X

a. The project site is located in an industrial area and does not meet any of the criteria for designation as an individual landmark or historic site. According to the City of Grover Beach Building Department, the storage building on the property was built in 1973. There are two other structures on the property, including a warehouse adjacent to the project site, which appear to have been constructed more recently. Because the buildings on the property were constructed in 1973 or later, they are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, the California Historical Landmarks, the

17

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

California Points of Historical Interest, or the California Historic Resources Inventory. Therefore, there are no historical resources on the project site. No impact would result. b-d. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not require any grading of the site. Minor trenching would be required for utility lines, which would occur in the ruderal, disturbed area adjacent to the roadway, as well as within the roadway easement. The total area of trenching would be approximately 626 square feet. Due to the limited area of trenching, shallow depth of utility trenching, and the disturbed nature of the area to be trenched, the proposed ground disturbance would not be expected to impact archaeological and paleontological resources or human remains. Impacts would be less than significant.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i.

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X

X X X X

X

X

X

a(i). The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults are located on or adjacent to the property, as identified by the U.S. Geologic Survey mapping system. Therefore, no impact would occur. a(ii-iv). The City of Grover Beach, along with all of the Central Coast, is within Seismic Zone 4 and subject to seismic groundshaking from faults in the region. Secondary seismic hazards result from the interaction of ground shaking with existing soil conditions, and include liquefaction, settlement, and landslides. Due to the relatively flat topography of the project site, impacts associated with landslides are not anticipated. According to the City’s General Plan 18

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

Safety Element (2000), the project site is located in an area that would be subject to moderate liquefaction potential in the event of a major earthquake. The Safety Element indicates that the presence of a high water table and potential for granular sediments in the project vicinity could amplify ground shaking and result in liquefaction and settlement. Seismic hazards would be minimized by implementing seismic requirements specified by the California Building Code (incorporates the Uniform Building Code) and the California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 (revised 2008), which includes design and construction requirements related to fire and life safety and structural safety. The proposed project would comply with existing building code standards for design and construction. Impacts would be less than significant. b. The proposed area of disturbance would be approximately 1,214 and would include minor trenching. The minimal amount of soil disturbance would not result in erosion or the loss of topsoil. Due to the small size of the proposed project and associated earthmoving activities, soil erosion impacts would be less than significant. c. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2000), the proposed project is located in an area with moderate liquefaction and settlement potential. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with standards set forth in the California Building Code and the California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Impacts would be less than significant. d. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2011), the project site is located on Oceano sand with 0-9 percent slopes. The shrink-swell potential for this soil type is low. Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, and impacts would be less than significant. e. The proposed project would install a cellular tower on a developed industrial site. Therefore, the project would not require the use of the City’s sewer system, nor the use of septic tanks. No impact would result.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X X

a-b. The project involves the installation of a cellular antenna tower on an existing site and would not generate substantial operational emissions. The project would generate a negligible amount of greenhouse gas emissions during construction and as a result of infrequent maintenance vehicle trips and back-up generator operations. Therefore, the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, conflict with an applicable plan, policy or 19

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or result in significant global climate change impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

a-b. The proposed project would install a cellular tower, which would emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, a type of electromagnetic energy. RF radiation can be harmful if radiation levels are high enough to heat biological tissue and raise body temperatures. Effects from high levels of RF radiation could cause health problems, such as cataracts or temporary sterility in men (Federal Communications Commission [FCC], 1999). A base station evaluation was performed for the project site to determine compliance with FCC guidelines for limiting human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields and is included as Appendix C (Hammett & Edison, 2011). A base station evaluation calculates the level of RF radiation emitted from a cellular tower using FCC established methodologies. According to the base station evaluation, the maximum RF exposure at ground level would be 0.015 megawatts per centimeters squared (mW/cm2). This level of exposure is 2.5% of the applicable public exposure limit of 0.58 mW/cm2. Second floor elevation exposure would be 0.0232 mW/cm2, or 4.0% of the public exposure limit. The evaluation concludes that the proposed project would comply with FCC standards for limiting

20

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

public exposure to RF frequencies (Hammett & Edison, 2011). Impacts due to RF exposure would be less than significant. The proposed project also involves the storage of a 210 gallon diesel fuel tank, used to power a backup generator in the event of a power outage. The transport, storage, and use of diesel fuel could result in a hazard to the public in the event of upset or accident conditions. Preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), in compliance with the California Health and Safety Code, section 25503.5 would be required to reduce the potential for impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. No schools are located within ¼ mile of the site. Therefore, schools would not be exposed to hazardous materials, substances, or waste due to the project, and there would be no impact. d. The project site does not appear on any hazardous material site lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In July 2011, Rincon Consultants searched the following databases for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database for superfund sites; Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Envirostor database for cleanup sites and hazardous waste permitted facilities; Geotracker search for leaking underground fuel tanks The project site does not appear on any of the above lists. The project site is approximately 0.5 miles south-west of a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site at the corner of Grand Avenue and 7th Street. The LUST site is undergoing assessment and remedial action to determine the potential for contamination of a local aquifer due to a former 500 gallon capacity underground waste oil tank and three former 10,000 gallon capacity fuel USTs associated with the site. According to a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the LUST site by Secor International Incorporated (2006), groundwater flow in the area is generally westerly, toward the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, there is the potential that contaminants from the LUST site could be present at the project site. Workers could be exposed to contaminants during utility line trenching. As such, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e-f. The project site is located approximately 1 mile north of the Oceano County Airport. The airport’s safety zones do not extend into the City of Grover Beach (County of San Luis Obispo, 2001). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard on the project site. The project site is not located near any private airstrips. Impacts would be less than significant. g. According to the San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services Tsunami Emergency Response Plan, the project site is located in a Tsunami hazard area that would be evacuated in the event of an emergency (2005). The evacuation route would be to higher ground via Grand Avenue, eastward towards Oak Park Boulevard. However, the proposed project would not include any structures that would be habitable by people. Neither construction nor operation of

21

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

the proposed project would interfere with the County’s adopted Tsunami Emergency Response Plan. Therefore impacts would be less than significant. h. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not within a high fire hazard zone, according to CAL FIRE’s Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for San Luis Obispo County(2007). No impact related to risk of wildland fires would result. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1

Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The applicant must complete and submit a HMBP and associated fees to the County of San Luis Obispo, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 25503.5. The HMBP shall include the following information: Business Owner/Operator Identification; Facility Information and Business Activities; Chemical Inventory; Site Map Template; Emergency Response Plan; Employee Training Program; and Business Plan Certification Form. The HMBP shall be submitted prior to the transport, storage, or use of diesel fuel on the project site.

HAZ-2

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Prior to trenching activities, a Phase I ESA shall be completed by a registered soils engineer or remediation specialist to determine the on-site presence or absence of regulated contaminants that may have migrated from off-site properties. This assessment shall target petroleum hydrocarbons typically found in former fuel UST sites. If soil or groundwater sampling indicates the presence of any contaminant in hazardous quantities, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) shall be contacted by the project applicant or authorized agent thereof to determine the level of any necessary remediation efforts, and these soils and/or groundwater shall be remediated in compliance with applicable laws. Site assessments that result in the need for soil excavation are required to include: an assessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with excavation activities; identification of any applicable local standards that may be exceeded by the excavation activities, including dust levels and noise; transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and risk of upset practices should an accident occur at the site. A copy of applicable remediation certification from RWQCB and/or DTSC, or written 22

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

confirmation that a certification is not required shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

a. The proposed project would install a cellular antenna tower on an existing industrial site. Construction of the proposed project would include a cement cell block pad, which would increase the impermeable surfaces on-site, resulting in a slight increase in urban storm water runoff. However, in accordance with City policy, all drainage shall be retained on the project site, which must be demonstrated with drainage calculations provided to the City. The new 588 square feet of concrete would be a minor increase in ground coverage and would not produce contamination or sediment conveyance that would violate water quality standards. Therefore, impacts to water quality or waste discharge would be less than significant.

23

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

b. The proposed project would not require the use of, or otherwise interfere with, groundwater supplies. No impact would result. c-f. The proposed project would require a minimal amount of ground disturbance, totaling 1,214 square feet. The minor amount of site disturbance would not alter absorption rates or drainage patterns. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g. The proposed project does not involve the construction of housing. No impact would result with respect to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. h. The project site falls within Zone X, which is determined to be outside designated floodplains, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008). Therefore, no impact to flood flows would occur. i. The project site is not located within the dam inundation area from Lopez Lake. Should the dam fail, development of the project site would not expose people or structures to risks associated with the flooding that may occur. Therefore, no impact would occur. j. The project site is located near the coastline of the Pacific Ocean and is subject to potential inundation by tsunami. According to the San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services Tsunami Emergency Response Plan, the project site is located in a tsunami hazard area that would be evacuated to higher ground towards Oak Park Boulevard, in the event of an emergency (2005). The proposed project does not include the construction of any new housing or structures, and construction of the proposed project would not interfere with the County’s adopted Tsunami Emergency Response Plan. The project is not located in an area that would be subject to seiche or mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant.

LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact X

a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

X

X

a. The project site is bordered by Rockaway Avenue to the north, a sanitation service facility to the west, South 3rd Street to the east, and Long Branch Avenue to the south. Currently, the subject parcel is developed with industrial warehouses. The proposed project would include the installation of a cellular antenna tower and would not divide an established community. No impact would result. b. The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Visitor Serving Mixed Use, and the corresponding Zoning designation is Coastal Industrial (C-I). The current industrial use of the site conflicts with the General Plan Land Use designation of Visitor Serving-Mixed use, 24

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

which is intended for retail, restaurants, visitor accommodations, and offices. This conflict is the result of a change to the City’s Land Use Element since the existing industrial parcel was developed. Per the current, adopted Land Use Element (2010), new development on such designated land should accommodate Visitor Serving-Mixed Use development. While the proposed project would be new development, the existing use of the subject parcel would not change. Therefore, there would be no change to the current use of the site. The use of cellular antennas in the C-I zone are not currently addressed in the City Zoning Code. The proposed project requests a Use Permit that would allow the use of a cellular antenna in the Coastal-Industrial zone, as well as the proposed height of 62 feet. The Use Permit would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with applicable land use and zoning designations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The Local Coastal Program (LCP) land use designation for the project site is Industrial and the zoning is C-I. According to the LCP, industrial land uses are for small-scale manufacturing and commercial service uses that are compatible with surrounding uses. The LCP also describes C-I zones as areas for development of manufacturing and other industries that can operate away from the restricting influences of non-industrial uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning district as they are described in the LCP. Impacts would be less than significant. c. The project site is not included in any adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any such plans and no impact would result.

MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

a-b. The majority of the City of Grover Beach, including the project site, is classified as Mineral Resources Zone 3 by the California Department of Conservation (1989). This classification includes areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. No mineral resource extraction activities are included in the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

25

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

NOISE – Would the project result in:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X X X

X

X

a, c. Operation of the proposed project may generate a small amount of noise associated with the low frequency “hum” of the cell tower. The allowable exterior noise limits for commercial zones during the day is 65 decibels per the City Municipal Code. Because maximum noise levels in the Municipal Code are only provided for residential and commercial zones, the commercial noise level was used as it is more applicable to an industrial use. Noise levels generated during normal operation would not exceed applicable noise standards established in the City Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of a crane and a cement mixer, which would not generate substantial ground vibrations. However, the proposed project would require trenching of utility lines, which could generate groundborne vibration in the project area. Per the City Municipal Code, the operation of equipment that generates vibration beyond the property line or at a distance of 150 feet from the source if in a public right-of-way is not permitted. The proposed project would comply with the noise chapter of the City Municipal Code and impacts would be less than significant. d. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may generate a temporary increase in noise in the site vicinity. The use of a crane during construction would generate approximately 85 decibels (dB) of noise at a distance of 50 feet (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971). The construction of the cement block as the base for the equipment would generate noise levels of approximately 78 dB at fifty feet of distance (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971). Trenching equipment would generate noise similar to that of a scraper or grader, producing noise levels of approximately 93 dB at fifty feet (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971).

26

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

In addition, the proposed project would include the temporary, infrequent use of a 30 kilowatt generator as a back-up source of energy. The generator would only be operational during testing and in the event of power failure to the site. Typical noise produced by a generator is approximately 82 dB at a distance of 50 feet (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971). According to the Municipal Code, receptors sensitive to noise include residential units, libraries, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. The sensitive receptor closest to the project site includes a single family residence approximately 150 feet southeast of the project site. Construction noise generally attenuates by about 6 dB per doubling of distance. Therefore, as shown in Table 2, the maximum noise level at the residence could reach up to 76 dB during construction activities, due to the noise generated by the crane, which would produce the loudest measurement of noise. Table 2 Anticipated Maximum Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Location Sensitive Receptor

Distance from Project Site

Anticipated Maximum Noise Level

Single Family Residence

150 feet southeast

84 dB

Single Family Residence

325 feet north

80 dB

Recreational Vehicle Park

250 feet southwest

77 dB

According to Chapter 1.01 of the City’s Municipal Code, maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation of construction equipment may not exceed 85 dBA in a commercial zone. Because maximum noise levels in the Municipal Code are only provided for residential and commercial zones, the commercial noise level was used as it is more applicable to an industrial use. Both the project site and the residences are located in an industrial zone. As shown in Table 2 above, the 85 dBA threshold would not be exceeded. In addition, construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday. Impacts would be less than significant. e-f. The project site is located approximately one mile north of the Oceano County Airport. The airport’s noise contours do not affect the project site. The project site is not located near any private airstrips. No impact would result.

27

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact

X

X X

a. The proposed project would install a cellular antenna tower on an existing site. The project would not add new homes or businesses or extend existing roads or other infrastructure in a manner that promotes additional growth. The project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and no impact would result. b-c. The proposed project site is currently developed with an industrial warehouse and would not result in the displacement of housing or people, or cause replacement housing to be constructed elsewhere. No impact would result. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) b) c) d) e)

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X X X X X

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

a. The project site is currently served by the Five Cities Fire Authority. The nearest fire station is located at 701 Rockaway Avenue, Grover Beach (corner of South 7th Street and Rockaway Avenue). The site is approximately one third mile (driving distance) from the fire station. Proposed improvements would not result in significant additional demand for fire protection services. As such, the proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. No impact related to fire protection services would occur. b. The project site is currently served by the City of Grover Beach Police Department. The nearest police station is located at 711 Rockaway Avenue in Grover Beach. The project site is located approximately one half mile (driving distance) from the police station. Proposed improvements would not result in additional demand for police protection services. As such, 28

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

the proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. No impact related to police protection services would occur. c-e. The proposed cell tower installation project would not increase the number of residents in the City, as the project does not include residential units. Because the demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities is driven by population, the proposed project would not increase demand for those services. As such, the proposed project would result in no impacts on these public services.

RECREATION –

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact

X

X

a-b. The proposed cell tower installation project would not generate population that would increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. Thus, the proposed project would not affect use of existing facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on recreational facilities.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X

29

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X X X

a-b. The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic, reduce the existing level of service, or create any additional congestion at any intersections. The proposed facility would require periodic maintenance, involving one vehicle trip per month. As such, level of service standards would not be exceeded and the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant. c. The proposed project would not be located within the Oceano Airport runway protection zone (Airport Land Use Commission, 2007). Therefore, the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in a safety risk. No impact would result. d. The proposed project does not include any design features that would create a hazard, such as sharp turns in the access road. The proposed project would be consistent with surrounding industrial uses. Therefore, no impact would result. e. The proposed project would not interfere with emergency access routes. No impact would result. f. The proposed project includes the installation of a cellular antenna tower on an existing site. The project would not affect alternative transportation. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative transportation, and there would be no impact.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact X X

X

30

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

Potentially Significant Impact

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X X

a-e. The proposed project would not require any water or wastewater service. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or result in the expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, no impact related to these utilities and service systems would occur. f-g. The installation of a cellular tower would generate a minimal amount of construction waste. However, the Cold Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional solid waste. The landfill is permitted to accept up to 1,200 tons per day, and the current average is approximately 600 tons per day. In addition, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially Significant Impact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

X

X

X

31

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

a. There are no biological resources present on-site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to a fish or wildlife species, or associated habitats. However, construction of the proposed project could impact nesting birds if construction occurs during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Due to the limited ground disturbance, the proposed project would not be expected to impact any cultural or historic resources. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measure, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. The project would not prompt additional work or future projects, nor would it have any adverse impacts that would reasonably be expected to be cumulatively considerable when viewed in combination with other current projects or probable future projects. The intent of the project is to improve cellular coverage for existing and future wireless customers. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Grover Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. Impacts would be less than significant. c. The proposed project would transport, store, and use diesel fuel on-site in the event of a power outage. The presence of diesel fuel could result in an adverse effect to human beings in the event of an accident. However, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 is required to further assess and reduce impacts related to the potential for exposure to contaminants that may have migrated from an off-site leaking underground storage tank. Furthermore, compliance with the City of Grover Beach Municipal Code, as well as all applicable federal and state regulations would further reduce potential adverse effects to human beings to a less than significant level. Impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

32

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

REFERENCES 1. Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Plan for the Oceano County Airport, May 2007. Retrieved from: http://sloairport.com/index.php?p=custom_page&page_name=Airport%20Land%20Use% 20Plan%20Oceano 2. California Coastal Commission, Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California’s Coastal Zone, 1994. Retrieved from: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/wetrev/wettc.html 3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 2006. September 2008. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2006/slo06.pdf 4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Report 162: Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate and Active Mines of All Other Commodities in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production Consumption Region. 1989. 5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Draft Oil and Gas Map W3-3. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/dist3/w3-3/Mapw3-3.pdf 6. California Department of Forestry and Fire (CALFIRE), Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zoning Map: San Luis Obispo County. 2007. Retrieved from: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_luis_obispo/fhsz_map.40.pdf 7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ 8. California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Find Cleanup Sites and Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities. 2007. Accessed July 2011. Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ 9. California Emergency Management Agency; California Geological Survey; and University of Southern California. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Oceano Quadrangle. July 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/ Inundation_Maps/Pages/Statewide_Maps.aspx 10. California Health and Safety Code. Section 25503.5. Last Modified January, 15 2011. Available at: http://law.onecle.com/california/health/25503.5.html 11. City of Grover Beach. General Plan, Land Use Element Update. Adopted February 2010. General Plan, Noise Element. Adopted January 1977. 33

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

General Plan, Safety Element. Adopted October 2000. General Plan, Scenic Routes Element. Adopted November 1981. City of Grover Beach. Local Coastal Program. Certified January 2000. City of Grover Beach. Municipal Code. Retrieved from: http://cagroverbeach.civicplus.com/index.aspx?nid=77#one 12. City of Grover Beach. Zoning Map. As amended, November 1, 2000. 13. County of San Luis Obispo. Oceano Specific Plan. 2001. Available at: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/Specific+Plans/Oceano+Specific+Plan.pdf 14. Federal Communications Commission, Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OEC Bulletin 56. Fourth Edition. August 1999. Retrieved from: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/ oet56e4.pdf 15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Luis Obispo County, California, Panel 1582, Map Number 0607C1582F. August 28, 2008. Retrieved from: http://map1.msc.fema.gov 16. Hammett & Edison Inc. Firm of Consulting Engineers. Verizon Wireless. Proposed Base Station. Site No. 247226 “4th and Atlantic”. 201 South 3rd Street. Grover Beach, California. May 27, 2011. 17. San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status Table. Retrieved from http://www.slocleanair.org/air/pdf/SLO_Attain_1209.pdf. 18. San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services. Tsunami Emergency Response Plan. 2005. Retrieved from: http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/education/science/docs/san_luis_obispo_tsunami_05n.pdf 19. Secor International Incorporated, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Results, 702 Grand Avenue, Grover Beach, California. June 20, 2006. Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607936656 20. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Database. Retrieved from: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/. 21. SWCA Environmental Consultants. City of Grover Beach Land Use Element Update Master Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2008061038. July 2009. 22. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

34

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

23. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Site Information. Updated February 2011. Accessed July 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/ 24. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Conservation Plans and Agreements Database. Retrieved from: http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/

35

City of Grover Beach

201 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.

36

City of Grover Beach

Appendix A

Site Photos and Visual Simulation

202 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDIX A Site Photos

View of the project site looking southwest from South Third Street.

View of the project site looking west from South Third Street.

1

City of Grover Beach

202 South 3rd Street Cell Tower Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

View of the project site looking south from the corner of South Third Street and Rockaway Avenue. The proposed project would be located south of the second building.

View of the north side of the property looking south from Rockaway Avenue.

2

City of Grover Beach

Appendix B

Air Quality Anaysis

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)

Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Project Location: San Luis Obispo County APCD

Project Name: Grover Beach 3rd St Cell Tower

File Name: L:\ESP\SLO Co\Grover Beach\11-68000 GB S 3rd St Cell Twr ISMND\Report\Appendices\AQ\GB 3rd St Cell Tower.urb924

8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM

Page: 1

0.01 0.00

2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)

Percent Reduction

0.00

ROG

0.02

ROG

0.00

0.09

0.09

NOx

0.02

ROG

NOx

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

ROG

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES

0.01

ROG

2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

Summary Report:

8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM

Page: 2

CO

0.00

NOx

0.00

NOx

0.00

NOx

0.00

0.05

0.05

CO

SO2

0.25

CO

0.00

CO

0.25

CO

0.00

0.00

0.00

SO2

PM10 Dust

0.00

SO2

0.00

SO2

0.00

SO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

PM10 Exhaust

0.00

PM10

0.00

PM10

0.00

PM10

0.00

0.01

0.01

PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust

PM10

0.00

PM2.5

0.00

PM2.5

0.00

PM2.5

0.00

0.01

0.01

PM10

PM2.5 Dust

2.39

CO2

0.03

CO2

2.36

CO2

0.00

0.00

0.00

PM2.5 Dust

PM2.5 Exhaust

0.00

0.01

0.01

PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

0.00

0.01

0.01

PM2.5

CO2

0.00

8.90

8.90

CO2

0.01

0.00

0.00

Building Off Road Diesel

Building Vendor Trips

Building Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

Acres to be Paved: 0.02

Phase: Paving 12/12/2011 - 12/13/2011 - Default Paving Description

1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day

1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day

2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.05

Phase Assumptions

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.09

Phase: Trenching 12/13/2011 - 12/15/2011 - Type Your Description Here

0.01

0.00

Trenching Worker Trips

Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011

0.00

0.00

Paving Worker Trips

Trenching Off Road Diesel

0.00

Paving On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

0.00

0.00

0.01

Paving Off-Gas

Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011

2011

8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM

Page: 3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.00

4.52

4.56

0.21

3.10

3.31

0.11

0.01

0.92

0.00

1.04

8.90

ROG

NOx

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day

2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day

1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

CO

SO2

Phase: Building Construction 12/15/2011 - 12/23/2011 - Default Building Construction Description

1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day

1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day

8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM

Page: 4

PM10 Dust

PM10 Exhaust

PM10

PM2.5 Dust

PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

CO2

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

Building Off Road Diesel

Building Vendor Trips

Building Worker Trips

0.00

Trenching Worker Trips

Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011

0.00

0.00

Paving Worker Trips

Trenching Off Road Diesel

0.00

Paving On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

0.00

0.00

0.01

Paving Off-Gas

Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011

2011

8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM

Page: 5

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.00

4.52

4.56

0.21

3.10

3.31

0.11

0.01

0.92

0.00

1.04

8.90

Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)

Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

4.64

2011 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated)

0.00

ROG

0.01

ROG

34.61

34.61

NOx

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)

0.01

ROG

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)

OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES

4.64

ROG

2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

Summary Report:

Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

0.01

NOx

0.00

NOx

0.01

NOx

20.50

20.50

CO

0.01

CO

0.00

CO

0.01

CO

0.00

0.00

SO2

On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Project Location: San Luis Obispo County APCD

Project Name: Grover Beach 3rd St Cell Tower

0.00

SO2

0.00

SO2

0.00

SO2

0.01

0.01

0.00

PM10

0.00

PM10

0.00

PM10

2.19

2.19

PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust

0.00

PM2.5

0.00

PM2.5

0.00

PM2.5

2.20

2.20

PM10

10.57

CO2

0.17

CO2

10.40

CO2

0.00

0.00

PM2.5 Dust

2.01

2.01

PM2.5 Exhaust

File Name: L:\ESP\SLO Co\Grover Beach\11-68000 GB S 3rd St Cell Twr ISMND\Report\Appendices\AQ\GB 3rd St Cell Tower.urb924

8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM

Page: 1

2.02

2.02

PM2.5

3,509.71

3,509.71

CO2

2.73

0.07

Trenching Off Road Diesel

Trenching Worker Trips

2.80

Time Slice 12/14/2011-12/14/2011 Active Days: 1

2.80

0.07

Trenching Worker Trips

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

2.73

0.06

Paving Worker Trips

Trenching Off Road Diesel

0.00

Paving On Road Diesel

2.80

1.75

Paving Off Road Diesel

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

0.03

Paving Off-Gas

1.84

0.06

Paving Worker Trips

Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011

0.00

Paving On Road Diesel

4.64

1.75

Paving Off Road Diesel

Time Slice 12/13/2011-12/13/2011 Active Days: 1

0.03

1.84

Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011

Paving Off-Gas

1.84

Time Slice 12/12/2011-12/12/2011 Active Days: 1

ROG

0.14

21.17

21.31

21.31

0.14

21.17

21.31

0.11

0.05

10.77

0.00

10.94

32.24

0.11

0.05

10.77

0.00

10.94

10.94

NOx

1.82

10.69

12.51

12.51

1.82

10.69

12.51

1.45

0.02

6.52

0.00

7.99

20.50

1.45

0.02

6.52

0.00

7.99

7.99

CO

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM

Page: 2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SO2

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

PM10 Dust

0.00

1.23

1.23

1.23

0.00

1.23

1.23

0.00

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

2.19

0.00

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

0.96

PM10 Exhaust

0.01

1.23

1.24

1.24

0.01

1.23

1.24

0.01

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

2.20

0.01

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

0.96

PM10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

PM2.5 Dust

0.00

1.13

1.13

1.13

0.00

1.13

1.13

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

2.01

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

0.88

PM2.5 Exhaust

0.01

1.13

1.14

1.14

0.01

1.13

1.14

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

2.02

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

0.88

PM2.5

138.42

2,069.83

2,208.26

2,208.26

138.42

2,069.83

2,208.26

110.74

8.12

916.36

0.00

1,035.22

3,243.47

110.74

8.12

916.36

0.00

1,035.22

1,035.22

CO2

1.72

1.72

1.72

0.00

0.00

Time Slice 12/16/2011-12/23/2011 Active Days: 6

Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011

Building Off Road Diesel

Building Vendor Trips

Building Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

Acres to be Paved: 0.02

Phase: Paving 12/12/2011 - 12/13/2011 - Default Paving Description

1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day

1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day

1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day

2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

0.12

0.01

6.27

6.40

6.40

1.82

10.69

12.51

0.12

0.01

6.27

6.40

18.91

Phase Assumptions

0.01

0.01

13.29

13.30

13.30

0.14

21.17

21.31

0.01

0.01

13.29

13.30

34.61

Phase: Trenching 12/13/2011 - 12/15/2011 - Type Your Description Here

0.07

Trenching Worker Trips

0.00

Building Worker Trips

2.73

0.00

Building Vendor Trips

Trenching Off Road Diesel

1.72

Building Off Road Diesel

2.80

1.72

Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

4.53

Time Slice 12/15/2011-12/15/2011 Active Days: 1

8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM

Page: 3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.00

1.23

1.23

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

2.02

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.01

1.23

1.24

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

2.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.00

1.13

1.13

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

1.86

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.01

1.13

1.14

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

1.86

9.21

1.39

1,290.85

1,301.45

1,301.45

138.42

2,069.83

2,208.26

9.21

1.39

1,290.85

1,301.45

3,509.71

0.03

1.75

0.00

0.06

Paving Off Road Diesel

Paving On Road Diesel

Paving Worker Trips

1.84

Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011

Paving Off-Gas

1.84

Time Slice 12/12/2011-12/12/2011 Active Days: 1

ROG

0.11

0.05

10.77

0.00

10.94

10.94

NOx

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

1 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day

2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day

1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day

Off-Road Equipment:

1.45

0.02

6.52

0.00

7.99

7.99

CO

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SO2

Phase: Building Construction 12/15/2011 - 12/23/2011 - Default Building Construction Description

1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day

1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day

1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day

8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM

Page: 4

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

PM10 Dust

0.00

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

0.96

PM10 Exhaust

0.01

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

0.96

PM10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

PM2.5 Dust

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

0.88

PM2.5 Exhaust

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

0.88

PM2.5

110.74

8.12

916.36

0.00

1,035.22

1,035.22

CO2

0.00

Building Worker Trips

0.07

0.00

Building Vendor Trips

Trenching Worker Trips

1.72

Building Off Road Diesel

2.73

1.72

Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011

Trenching Off Road Diesel

4.53

Time Slice 12/15/2011-12/15/2011 Active Days: 1

2.80

0.07

Trenching Worker Trips

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

2.73

Trenching Off Road Diesel

2.80

Time Slice 12/14/2011-12/14/2011 Active Days: 1

2.80

0.07

Trenching Worker Trips

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

2.73

0.06

Paving Worker Trips

Trenching Off Road Diesel

0.00

Paving On Road Diesel

2.80

1.75

Paving Off Road Diesel

Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011

0.03

1.84

Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011

Paving Off-Gas

4.64

Time Slice 12/13/2011-12/13/2011 Active Days: 1

8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM

Page: 5

0.14

21.17

21.31

0.01

0.01

13.29

13.30

34.61

0.14

21.17

21.31

21.31

0.14

21.17

21.31

0.11

0.05

10.77

0.00

10.94

32.24

1.82

10.69

12.51

0.12

0.01

6.27

6.40

18.91

1.82

10.69

12.51

12.51

1.82

10.69

12.51

1.45

0.02

6.52

0.00

7.99

20.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

1.23

1.23

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

2.02

0.00

1.23

1.23

1.23

0.00

1.23

1.23

0.00

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

2.19

0.01

1.23

1.24

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

2.03

0.01

1.23

1.24

1.24

0.01

1.23

1.24

0.01

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.96

2.20

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.13

1.13

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

1.86

0.00

1.13

1.13

1.13

0.00

1.13

1.13

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

2.01

0.01

1.13

1.14

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

1.86

0.01

1.13

1.14

1.14

0.01

1.13

1.14

0.00

0.00

0.87

0.00

0.88

2.02

138.42

2,069.83

2,208.26

9.21

1.39

1,290.85

1,301.45

3,509.71

138.42

2,069.83

2,208.26

2,208.26

138.42

2,069.83

2,208.26

110.74

8.12

916.36

0.00

1,035.22

3,243.47

1.72

1.72

1.72

0.00

0.00

Time Slice 12/16/2011-12/23/2011 Active Days: 6

Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011

Building Off Road Diesel

Building Vendor Trips

Building Worker Trips

8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM

Page: 6

0.12

0.01

6.27

6.40

6.40

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

0.01

0.01

13.29

13.30

13.30

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.00

0.00

0.78

0.78

0.78

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.72

0.72

9.21

1.39

1,290.85

1,301.45

1,301.45

Appendix C

Radio Frequency Base Station Evaluation

Verizon Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 247226 “4th and Atlantic”) 201 South Third Street • Grover Beach, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Verizon Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. 247226 “4th and Atlantic”) proposed to be located at 201 South Third Street in Grover Beach, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields.

Executive Summary Verizon proposes to install directional panel antennas on a tall steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree, to be located at the northwest corner of South Third Street and Longbranch Avenue in Grover Beach. The proposed operation will comply with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC’s exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Wireless Service

Frequency Band

Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000–80,000 MHz BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 Cellular 870 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 700 MHz 700 [most restrictive frequency range] 30–300

Occupational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2

5.00 5.00 5.00 2.90 2.85 2.35 1.00

Public Limit

1.00 mW/cm2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.57 0.47 0.20

General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called “radios” or “channels”) that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky.

U1FF Page 1 of 3

Verizon Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 247226 “4th and Atlantic”) 201 South Third Street • Grover Beach, California Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation,” dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna’s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the “near-field” effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the “inverse square law”). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Verizon, including zoning drawings by SAC Wireless, dated February 2, 2011, it is proposed to install nine Andrew directional panel antennas – six Model LNX6512DS-VTM and three Model HBX-6516DS-VTM – on a new 58-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree, to be installed at the northwest corner of South Third Street and Longbranch Avenue in Grover Beach. The antennas would be mounted with up to 6° downtilt at effective heights of about 48 and 55 feet above ground and would be oriented in groups of three (two LNX and one HBX) at about 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 7,100 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 4,670 watts for PCS, 2,030 watts for cellular, and 400 watts for 700 MHz service. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations at the site or nearby. Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation is calculated to be 0.015 mW/cm2, which is 2.5% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby building* is 4.0% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several “worst-case” assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation. * Including the residences located at least 80 feet away. U1FF Page 2 of 3

Verizon Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 247226 “4th and Atlantic”) 201 South Third Street • Grover Beach, California No Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting locations, the Verizon antennas would not be accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Verizon will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that operation of the base station proposed by Verizon Wireless at 201 South Third Street in Grover Beach, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2013. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.

_________________________________ William F. Hammett, P.E. 707/996-5200 May 27, 2011

U1FF Page 3 of 3

FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, “Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)

Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3 – 1.34 – 3.0 – 30 – 300 – 1,500 –

Electric Field Strength (V/m)

1.34 3.0 30 300 1,500 100,000

614 614 1842/ f 61.4 3.54 f 137

614 823.8/ f 823.8/ f 27.5 1.59 f 61.4

Power Density (mW/cm2)

1000

Magnetic Field Strength (A/m) 1.63 1.63 4.89/ f 0.163 f /106 0.364

Equivalent Far-Field Power Density (mW/cm2)

1.63 2.19/ f 2.19/ f 0.0729 f /238 0.163

100 100 900/ f2 1.0 f/300 5.0

100 180/ f2 180/ f2 0.2 f/1500 1.0

Occupational Exposure

100

PCS

10

FM

Cell

1 0.1 Public Exposure

104 103 105 10 100 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. 0.1

1

FCC Guidelines Figure 1

RFR.CALC™ Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. For a panel or whip antenna, power density

S

=

0.1  Pnet 180  , in mW/cm2,
 BW
 D2  h

and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density where

BW Pnet D h


= = = = =

Smax

=

0.1  16    Pnet , in mW/cm2,
 h2

half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and net power input to the antenna, in watts, distance from antenna, in meters, aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).

The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density

S

2.56  1.64  100  RFF 2  ERP = , in mW/cm2, 4 
 D2

where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections.

Methodology Figure 2