201 South Third Street Cell Tower Project: Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration

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:

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
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 Construction Emissions ....................................................................................................... 15

Table 2 Anticipated Maximum Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptor Location ........................... 27

i
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 Site Plan.................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 East Elevation .......................................................................................................................... 8
Appendices
Appendix A Site Photos and Visual Simulation

Appendix B Air Quality Analysis
Appendix C Radio Frequency Base Station Evaluation

ii
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
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
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT TITLE
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

154 South Eighth Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER

Bruce Buckingham, Community Development Director
(805) 473-4520
bbuckingham@grover.org
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
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
Avenal
Lockwood
Basemap Source: ESRI Data, 2004, and USGS/CDFG, 2002.
_
^ Project Location
± ± _
^
Grover Beach
Guadalupe
Maricopa
PACIFIC
OC EA N
Santa Ynez
Regional Location Figure 1

Rockaway Ave
S 3rd St
U.P
. R.R
.
Longbranc h Ave
Hig
h wa
Project Site
y1
0 50
Scale in Feet
100
±
Bing Maps Aerial: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers.
Project Location Figure 2

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
0 6 12 Feet
Source: Verizon Wireless, June 2011.

Site Plan Figure 3
0 6 12 Feet
Source: Verizon Wireless, June 2011.

East Elevation Figure 4
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 Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems

9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
AESTHETICS - Would the project: Significant With Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and X
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
X
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 X
in the area?
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
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
Less Than
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Potentially Significant Less Than
No
RESOURCES – Significant With Significant
Impact
Would the project :1 Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
X
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
X
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
X
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
X
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
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
Less Than
No
AIR QUALITY - Would the project1: Significant With Significant
Impact
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
X
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected X
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
X
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
X
number of people?
1.
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
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

Ozone Precursors
DPM1 PM10 dust
(ROG + NOX)
Maximum running quarterly emissions 0.1 tons/quarter 0.01 tons/quarter 0.0 tons/quarter
SLOAPCD running quarterly
2.5 tons/quarter 0.13 tons/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter
Threshold
Maximum daily emissions 39.25 lbs/day 2.19 lbs/day 0.01 lbs/day
SLOAPCD daily threshold 137 lbs/day 7 lbs/day n/a
1
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
Less Than
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Significant With Significant
No
Would the project: Impact
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
X
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, X
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,
X
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 X
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 X
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
X
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
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
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.
Less Than
No
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Significant With Significant
Impact
Incorporated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in § X
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant X
to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic X
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
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
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.
Less Than
No
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Significant With Significant
Impact
Incorporated
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 X
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? X
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
X
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
X
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 X
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), X
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
X
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
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
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
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.
Less Than
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on X
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions X
of greenhouse gases?
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
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or result in
significant global climate change impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Less Than
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS No
Significant With Significant
MATERIALS - Would the project: Impact
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or X
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 X
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
X
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 X
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 X
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 X
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or X
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 X
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
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
public exposure to RF frequencies (Hammett & Edison, 2011). Impacts due to RF exposure
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
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
confirmation that a certification is not required shall be submitted

to the City Community Development Department.
Less Than
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
X
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
X
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 X
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
X
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
X
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
X
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 X
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
X
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 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
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.
Less Than
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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
X
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
X
plan or natural community conservation plan?
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
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
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.
Less Than
MINERAL RESOURCES – Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and X
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
X
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
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
Less Than
No
NOISE – Would the project result in: Significant With Significant
Impact
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
X
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 X
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X
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
X
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
X
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
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
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
Distance from Project Anticipated Maximum
Sensitive Receptor
Site Noise Level
Single Family
150 feet southeast 84 dB
Residence
Single Family
325 feet north 80 dB
Residence
Recreational Vehicle
250 feet southwest 77 dB
Park
According to Chapter 1.01 of the City’s Municipal Code, maximum noise levels for non-
scheduled, 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
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
Less Than
POPULATION AND HOUSING – Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, X
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?
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 Less Than
governmental facilities, need for new or physically Potentially Significant Less Than
No
altered governmental facilities, the construction of Significant With Significant
Impact
which could cause significant environmental impacts, Impact Mitigation Impact
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, Incorporated
response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
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
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.
Less Than
No
RECREATION – Significant With Significant
Impact
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
X
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
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.
Less Than
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – No
Incorporated
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 X
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
X
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 X
location that results in substantial safety risks?

29
Less Than
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – No
Incorporated
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
X
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
X
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities?
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.
Less Than
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
X
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
X
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

30
Less Than
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Significant With Significant
No
Incorporated
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
X
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 X
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 X
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
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.
Less Than
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF No
SIGNIFICANCE Impact
Incorporated
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 self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X
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 X
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 X
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

31
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
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
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://ca-
groverbeach.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
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
This page intentionally left blank.

36
Appendix A
Site Photos and Visual Simulation
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
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
Appendix B
Air Quality Anaysis
Page: 1
8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)

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
Project Name: Grover Beach 3rd St Cell Tower
Project Location: San Luis Obispo County APCD
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2
Exhaust
2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.90
2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.90
Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.02 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
Page: 3
8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM
2011 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.90
Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.31
Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10
Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21
Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.56
Building Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Trenching 12/13/2011 - 12/15/2011 - Type Your Description Here

Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 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 Trenchers (63 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 12/12/2011 - 12/13/2011 - Default Paving Description

Acres to be Paved: 0.02
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day
Page: 4
8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/15/2011 - 12/23/2011 - Default Building Construction Description

Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
Page: 5
8/4/2011 1:54:15 PM
2011 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.90
Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.31
Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10
Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.56
Building Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52
Construction Related Mitigation Measures

Page: 1
8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)

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
Project Name: Grover Beach 3rd St Cell Tower
Project Location: San Luis Obispo County APCD
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2
Exhaust
2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 4.64 34.61 20.50 0.00 0.01 2.19 2.20 0.00 2.01 2.02 3,509.71
2011 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 4.64 34.61 20.50 0.00 0.01 2.19 2.20 0.00 2.01 2.02 3,509.71
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.40
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
Page: 2
8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Time Slice 12/12/2011-12/12/2011 1.84 10.94 7.99 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.88 1,035.22
Active Days: 1
Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011 1.84 10.94 7.99 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.88 1,035.22
Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Time Slice 12/13/2011-12/13/2011 4.64 32.24 20.50 0.00 0.01 2.19 2.20 0.00 2.01 2.02 3,243.47
Active Days: 1
Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011 1.84 10.94 7.99 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.88 1,035.22
Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.73 21.17 10.69 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 1.13 1.13 2,069.83
Time Slice 12/14/2011-12/14/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Active Days: 1
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Page: 3
8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM
Time Slice 12/15/2011-12/15/2011 4.53 34.61 18.91 0.00 0.01 2.02 2.03 0.00 1.86 1.86 3,509.71
Active Days: 1
Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011 1.72 13.30 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,301.45
Building Off Road Diesel 1.72 13.29 6.27 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,290.85
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Time Slice 12/16/2011-12/23/2011 1.72 13.30 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,301.45
Active Days: 6
Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011 1.72 13.30 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,301.45
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Trenching 12/13/2011 - 12/15/2011 - Type Your Description Here

Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 12/12/2011 - 12/13/2011 - Default Paving Description

Acres to be Paved: 0.02
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day
Page: 4
8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/15/2011 - 12/23/2011 - Default Building Construction Description

Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
Time Slice 12/12/2011-12/12/2011 1.84 10.94 7.99 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.88 1,035.22
Active Days: 1
Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011 1.84 10.94 7.99 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.88 1,035.22
Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page: 5
8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM
Time Slice 12/13/2011-12/13/2011 4.64 32.24 20.50 0.00 0.01 2.19 2.20 0.00 2.01 2.02 3,243.47
Active Days: 1
Asphalt 12/12/2011-12/13/2011 1.84 10.94 7.99 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.88 0.88 1,035.22
Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Time Slice 12/14/2011-12/14/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Active Days: 1
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Time Slice 12/15/2011-12/15/2011 4.53 34.61 18.91 0.00 0.01 2.02 2.03 0.00 1.86 1.86 3,509.71
Active Days: 1
Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011 1.72 13.30 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,301.45
Trenching 12/13/2011-12/15/2011 2.80 21.31 12.51 0.00 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.00 1.13 1.14 2,208.26
Page: 6
8/4/2011 1:54:33 PM
Time Slice 12/16/2011-12/23/2011 1.72 13.30 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,301.45
Active Days: 6
Building 12/15/2011-12/23/2011 1.72 13.30 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.72 1,301.45
Construction Related Mitigation Measures

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 Occupational Limit Public Limit
Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000–80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2
BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 5.00 1.00
AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00
PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 5.00 1.00
Cellular 870 2.90 0.58
SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57
700 MHz 700 2.35 0.47
[most restrictive frequency range] 30–300 1.00 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
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 LNX-
6512DS-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
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:
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)

Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2)
0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
1.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f2
3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2
30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500
1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
1000 Occupational Exposure

100 PCS
(mW/cm2)
Density
Power
10 Cell
FM
1
0.1
Public Exposure
0.1 1
10 100 103 104 105
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.
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.
180 0.1 Pnet
For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = , in mW/cm2,
BW D2 h
0.1 16 Pnet
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = , in mW/cm2,
h2
where BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D = distance from antenna, in meters,
h = 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:
2.56 1.64 100 RFF 2 ERP
power density S = , 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

201 South Third Street Cell Tower Project: Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

201 South Third Street Cell Tower Project: Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment 7

City of Grover Beach