Verizon Wireless, Auburn Facility Project MND

8/14/2019 Verizon Wireless, Auburn Facility Project MND

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/verizon-wireless-auburn-facility-project-mnd 1/86

D R A F T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E

D E C L A R A T I O N

V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S

A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F O R A N G E E N V I R O N M E N T A L R E V I E W N O . 1 8 1 2 - 0 8





TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION, SITE DESCRIPTION, AND SURROUNDING LAND

USES......................................................................................................................................2 2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 2

2.3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS............................................................................7 2.4 CONTACT PERSONS .......................................................................................................... 7

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED....................................................... 10

FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location......................................................................................................................3

Figure 2: Architectural Elevations.......................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Electrical and Trenching Plan.................................................................................................5 Figure 4: Aerial of Project Area ............................................................................................................. 6

TABLES

Table A: Peak Day Construction Emissions (lbs/day) by Phase1.........................................................18

Table B: Summary of Construction Emissions Localized Significance............................................... 19

APPENDICES

A: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS

B: ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY REPORT

C: MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT



L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E DM I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E DM I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E DM I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T IE C L A R A T IE C L A R A T IE C L A R A T I O NO NO NO N

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9 V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F O R A N G E , C A L IC I T Y O F O R A N G E , C A L IC I T Y O F O R A N G E , C A L IC I T Y O F O R A N G E , C A L I F O R N I A F O R N I A F O R N I A F O R N I A

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, this

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared as preliminaryenvironmental documentation for the proposed Verizon Wireless Auburn Facility Project (hereinafter,

the project). This IS/MND includes a description of the proposed project, location of the project site,

evaluation of the potential environmental impacts, findings from the environmental review, and

proposed mitigation measures to lessen or avoid potentially significant, adverse impacts on the

environment. It has been prepared to determine whether a Categorical Exemption (CE), MND, or

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be the appropriate documentation in compliance with

CEQA for the proposed project.

The analysis contained in the IS has found that the project may have a significant effect on theenvironment, unless mitigation is included to lessen or avoid the environmental effects of the project.

Mitigation measures have been attached to the project in this IS/MND. With incorporation of these

measures, potential environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore,

the City has determined that an MND is the appropriate environmental documentation to be prepared

for the Verizon Wireless Auburn Facility Project.

This IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from the project. The

City of Orange is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the proposed project. The City PlanningCommission is responsible for approval of the environmental documentation prior to approval of the

project.



L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E DM I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E DM I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E DM I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T IE C L A R A T IE C L A R A T IE C L A R A T I O NO NO NO N



2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION, SITE DESCRIPTION, AND SURROUNDING LAND

USESThe proposed project site is located in Orange County within the northern portion of City of Orange

(City). Specifically, the project site is located approximately 985 feet (ft) southwest of the intersection

of Via Escola and Cannon Street. Regional accessibility to the site is via State Route 91 (SR-91) andImperial Highway. Figure 1 provides the project location.

The proposed project location is within an electrical transmission corridor that runs northeast and

southwest through the area. The project site is designated for open-space land uses in the City’s

General plan and is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of two 143 ft tall Southern CaliforniaEdison (SCE) lattice towers and a graded dirt road that provides construction/maintenance/equipment

access. The land-uses surrounding the transmission corridor consist of low- and low-to-medium-

density residential uses.

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project would involve installation of an unmanned telecommunications facility on and

under an existing SCE lattice tower that was constructed in 1992 and is located approximately 985 ftsouthwest of the intersection of Via Escola and Cannon Street in the City and County of Orange,

California. The existing lattice tower is 143 ft, 10 inches tall and located approximately within an

electrical transmission corridor that is designated as open space.

The project would involve installation of a 4 ft diameter parabolic antenna, a global positioning

systems (GPS) antenna, and 12 directional antennas mounted on the lattice tower. The antennas

would be mounted between 50 and 61 ft aboveground, as shown on Figure 2. Additional equipment

includes four equipment cabinets that would be mounted on a new concrete pad, measuring 18 ft, 6

inches long and 3 ft, 6 inches wide, underneath the existing lattice tower. The project would also

construct a 16 ft wide, 32 ft long, and 8 ft high chain-link fence with vinyl slats around the equipment

under the tower, and install four lights, three located on the chain-link fence and one on an equipment

cabinet (Figure 3). The purpose of the lights is to provide adequate lighting on the ground equipment

to allow equipment maintenance and repairs to occur at night if necessary. As described under

Response 1.d, the lighting would have no direct illumination, spill, or glare on areas beyond the



Project Vicinity

Orange

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Bernardino

Project Vicinity

Project SiteLattice Tower

Location

Project Site



FEET

40200

SOURCE: ACO Architects Inc.

I:\RCX0801\G\Electrical Plan.cdr (8/7/08)

Architectural Elevations

Verizon Wireless Auburn Facility Project

FIGURE 2

SOUTH ELEVATIONOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATIONORTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATIONAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONEST ELEVATION



FEET

840

SOURCE: ACO Architects Inc.

I:\RCX0801\G\Electrical Plan.cdr (8/7/08)

Electrical Plan

Verizon Wireless Auburn Facility Project

N

FIGURE 3



VIA ESCOLAVIA ESCOLA

PROJECT

TOWER

‘A’

PROJECT

TOWER

‘A’

PROJECT

TOWER

‘B’

PROJECT

TOWER

‘B’

CANNON TREET

C A N N O N S T R E E T

BGA RIELLE LANEBGA T R S IE A E L LE LANE



L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O ND E C L A R A T I O ND E C L A R A T I O ND E C L A R A T I O N


C I T Y O F O R A N G EC I T Y O F O R A N G EC I T Y O F O R A N G EC I T Y O F O R A N G E , C A L I F O R N I A , C A L I F O R N I A , C A L I F O R N I A , C A L I F O R N I A

Implementation of the proposed project would require installation of a new underground telco-fiber

optic feed conduit that would be approximately 310 ft long and would run from the proposed

equipment to another lattice tower located on the project site. The project would also require an

underground electrical trench conduit run of approximately 1,120 ft along the property line, from the

meter located at Via Escola to the new equipment under the lattice tower. The location of the

proposed conduit runs are shown in Figure 3.

The proposed equipment described above would be unmanned and operational activity related to the

proposed project would be limited to periodic maintenance of the new equipment, which is similar to

the existing activities on site related to the existing lattice tower and equipment.

2.3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS

This IS/MND has been prepared pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines and is based

on a review of previous documents, field reviews, and technical studies conducted for this project.

The following planning documents were reviewed during preparation of this IS/MND and areincorporated into the analysis contained herein:

• City of Orange General Plan

In addition, the following site visits were conducted as part of the field review:

• LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted an Archaeological Resource Survey on March 29, 2007.

• LSA conducted a Biological Resources Surveys on May 1, 2007, and July 17, 2008.

2.4 CONTACT PERSONS

Any questions regarding the preparation of this IS/MND, its assumptions, or conclusions should be

referred to:

Robert Garcia

City of OrangeCommunity Development Department

Planning Division

300 East Chapman Avenue

Orange, CA 92866-1591

Phone: (714) 744-7231

Fax: (714) 744-7222



CITY OF ORANGE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION

300 East Chapman Avenue

Orange, CA 92866-1591

(714) 744-7220

(714) 744-7222 Faxwww.cityoforange.org

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1812-08

Project Title:Verizon Wireless / Auburn Facility

Reference Application Numbers:CUP NO: 2627-06

Lead Agency:City of Orange

Contact Person and Telephone No.:Robert Garcia / 714-744-7231

Project Proponent and Address:SCE Tower / Via Escola & Portofira

Contact Person and Telephone No.:Paul Slotemaker / 503-241-0279 x23

Project Location: Approximately 300 meters southwest of the intersection of Via Escola and Cannon Street in the City of Orange

Existing General Plan Designation:Open Space

Existing Zoning Classification: PC / Planned Community District

Existing Site Conditions:The project site is located within a 460-foot (ft) wide electrical transmission corridor that runs northeast and

southwest through the area. The project site is designated for open-space land uses in the City’s General Plan

and is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of two 143-ft tall Southern California Edison (SCE) lattice

towers and a graded dirt road that provides construction/maintenance/equipment access. The graded dirt road is

located adjacent to the site tower. One of the lattice towers (identified as Tower B on Figure 4) has existing

Cingular Wireless equipment on and under the tower. This existing equipment is similar to the equipment that

is proposed under the project. The proposed facilities would be an addition to the other existing 143 ft tall SCE

lattice tower, which is identified as Tower A on Figure 4.

Surrounding Land Uses:The land uses surrounding the project site include the remainder of the transmission corridor that runs northeast

and southwest and is designated for open-space uses. All other adjacent lands are developed and consist of low-

density residential to and low-medium-density residential. The closest residential use to the north is

approximately 60 ft from the site tower and located behind a cement wall. The closest residential use to the

south is approximately 300 ft from the tower at a lower elevation, which also provides some additionali f h i i id



The project would involve installation of a 4 ft diameter parabolic antenna, a global positioning system (GPS)

antenna, and 12 directional antennas mounted on the lattice tower. The antennas would be mounted between 50

and 61 ft aboveground, as shown on Figure 2. Additional equipment includes four equipment cabinets that

would be mounted on a new concrete pad measuring 18 ft 6 inches long and 3 ft 6 inches wide, underneath the

existing lattice tower. The project would also construct a 16 ft wide, 32 ft long, and 8 ft high chain-link fencewith vinyl slats around the equipment under the tower and install four lights, with three located on the chain-

link fence and one on an equipment cabinet (Figure 3). The purpose of the lights is to provide adequate lighting

on the ground equipment to allow equipment maintenance and repairs to occur at night if necessary. As

described under Response 1.d, the lighting would have no direct illumination, spill, or glare on areas beyond

the project site. A reflective carrier/site name/site address/contact number sign would also be installed on the

chain-link fence per City of Orange Police Department requirements.

Implementation of the proposed equipment would require installation of a new underground telco-fiber optic

feed conduit that would be approximately 310 ft long and would run from the proposed equipment to another

lattice tower located on the project site. The project would also require an underground electrical trench conduit

run of approximately 1,120 ft along the property line, from the meter located at Via Escola to the new

equipment under the lattice tower. The location of the proposed conduit runs is shown in Figure 3.

The proposed equipment described above would be unmanned and operational activity related to the proposed

project would be limited to periodic maintenance of the new equipment, which is similar to the existing

activities on site related to the existing lattice tower and equipment.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (Responsible or Trustee Agencies):The United States Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service is a Responsible Agency.

MND Prepared by:LSA Associates, Inc.

Scheduled Public Meetings or Hearings:The project would require approval by the City of Orange Design Review Committee and Planning

Commission. Currently, these public meetings have not yet been scheduled.





EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by

the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer

is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to

projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer

should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project

will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative

as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers

must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than

significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may

be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is

made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation

of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than

Significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how theyreduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-

referenced, as discussed below).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect

has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case,

a brief discussion should identity the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of

and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether

such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”,

describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the

extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential

impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document

should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals

contacted should be cited in the discussion.



CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES:

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

SignificantWith

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?

(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and

its surroundings?

(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely

affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Impact Analysis

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is designated for open-space land uses and is locatedwithin an electrical transmission corridor. The proposed project site is currently developed with two lattice

towers. One of the existing lattice towers (identified as Tower B on Figure 4) is currently equipped with cellular

telecommunications equipment that would be similar to those proposed by the project. Like the existing towerwith telecommunications equipment, the proposed equipment would be located on and under the other existing

lattice tower on the project site, which is identified as Tower A on Figure 4.

The topography of the project site is relatively flat, but the surrounding area is characterized by hillsides, which,

as described by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, provide a significant visual

backdrop to the environment. Hillside areas provide visual relief from expanses of roads, buildings and signs. The

Open Space and Conservation Element states that it is the City’s intent to preserve hillside open-space areaswherever possible, yet still allow for development. The project site is not designated by the City’s General Plan or

any other agency or plan as being visually significant.

The existing lattice towers and facilities are visible from some of the residences located to the north of the project

site. Similarly, the proposed equipment may also be visible from some of these nearby residences. However, dueto the topography of the area, views of the project site from many nearby areas are constrained by hillsides.

Additionally, as a result of the existing lattice towers and communications facilities on the project site, existing

views of the project area are not highly scenic. Further, there are no aesthetic of visual resources located on the

project site or in the surrounding vicinity that have been designated by the City of Orange or other agency or plan.

Therefore, the addition of the communication equipment to the existing facilities on site, as proposed by theproject, would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

b) No Impact. The proposed project would not damage or have negative effects on any scenic resources within or

adjacent to the project site. The proposed project site is not located within a State scenic highway. The closest

State scenic highway to the project site is State Route (SR) 91 which is designated as a scenic highway between



c) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 1.a above. As described above, the proposed project site is

designated for open-space land uses, is located within an electrical transmission corridor, and is currently

developed with two lattice towers. One of the existing lattice towers (identified as Tower B on Figure 4) is

currently equipped with cellular telecommunications equipment that would be similar to that proposed by theproject. Like the existing tower with telecommunications equipment, the proposed equipment would be located on

and under the other existing lattice tower on the project site, which is identified as Tower A on Figure 4. The

proposed project would include installation of four equipment cabinets underneath the existing lattice tower that

would be surrounded by an 8 ft high chain-link fence with vinyl slats and several different antennas on the lattice

tower, as shown in Figure 2. Because the project site is developed with two existing lattice towers within a

designated and very clear utility right-of-way, the addition of the proposed improvements within the utilitycorridor would not be expected, especially considering the proposed telecommunications equipment is similar in

extent, size, and character to the existing telecommunications equipment on the other lattice tower on site.

Because the improvements are relatively small and unobtrusive, the proposed project would not substantially

degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is located within an

open-space/electrical transmission corridor that is adjacent to residential land uses. The proposed project would

include a reflective carrier/site name/site address/contact number sign located on the facility per City of Orange

Police Department requirements. In addition, the project would install four lights. Three of the lights would be

located on the chain-link fence and one would be located on the equipment cabinet under the lattice tower. The

purpose of the lights is to provide adequate lighting on the ground equipment to allow equipment maintenance

and repairs to occur at night if necessary. Therefore, the proposed lighting would only be used for short periods of

time at irregular, limited intervals. The lighting would be low-intensity (consisting of 60-watt bulbs) and would

only brighten the equipment area under the lattice tower. The proposed lighting would have no direct

illumination, spill, or glare on areas beyond the lattice tower and would not substantially increase the amount of

light and glare on site. Likewise, the lighting would not substantially increase the intensity of light to sensitiveviewers such as residences in the surrounding area due to the distance and topography between residences and the

lattice tower. However, to ensure that light and glare are implemented in such a way as to minimize off-site

spillage, Mitigation Measure 1.A is proposed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1.A will ensure that

potential impacts related to light and glare are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure that potential light and glare impacts resultingfrom project implementation would be reduced to less than significant levels.

1.A Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CommunityDevelopment Department that the final construction drawings include specifications for: (1) energy-

efficient luminaries that control light energy, and (2) lighting to be directed downward and away from



2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. (In determining whether impacts toagricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agenciesmay refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site

Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultureand farmland.) Would the project

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of StatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to theFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ResourcesAgency, to non-agricultural use?

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Actcontract?

(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to theirlocation or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-

agricultural use?

Impact Analysis

a) No Impact. The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland,

Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The surrounding area is designated as preserved open

space or developed with residential land uses. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other type of farmland to a nonagricultural use. Likewise,

the proposed project site is zoned Planned Community District (PC) and therefore would not conflict with any

existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or contribute to environmental changes that

could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

b) No Impact. In 1965, California enacted the California Land Conservation Act to preserve agricultural land and

open space and promote efficient urban growth patterns. Under the California Land Conservation Act, more

commonly known as the Williamson Act, an owner of agricultural land may enter into a contract with the county

(or local jurisdiction) if the landowner agrees to restrict use of the land to the production of commercial crops for

a term of not less than 10 years. The law requires the creation of “agricultural preserves” of a minimum of

100 acres (ac) and restricts uses in those preserves to those compatible with agriculture. In return, the land is

assessed at its agricultural value, thereby providing landowners with significant property tax relief.

The proposed project site is not used for agricultural production and is not zoned for agricultural use or subject to

a Williamson Act contract.

c) No Impact. The project site is presently developed with two SCE lattice towers and otherwise designated foropen-space uses and is not used for agricultural production or designated or zoned for agriculture. The proposed

project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use. Likewise, the proposed project site would not

contribute to environmental changes that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.



3. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance criteria established bythe applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may berelied upon to make the following determinations.)

Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation?

(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutantfor which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or

state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions whichexceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Air Quality Significance Criteria

Air quality impacts would be significant if the project does not conform with applicable air quality plans, violates

ambient air quality standards, contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, exposes

sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or creates odors that affect a substantial number of

people. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant areset forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The

criteria include emission thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with

the existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) or consistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan

(AQMP).

Thresholds for Construction Emissions. The following significance thresholds for construction emissions have

been established by the SCAQMD:

• 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of reactive organic compounds (ROC)

• 100 lbs/day of nitrogen oxide (NOX)

• 550 lbs/day of carbon monoxide (CO)

• 150 lbs/day of particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10)

• 55 lbs/ day of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5)

• 150 lbs/day of sulfur oxide (SOX)

Projects in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) with construction-related emissions that exceed any of the emission

thresholds above are considered significant by the SCAQMD.

Thresholds for Operational Emissions The daily operational emissions “significance” thresholds are as





Thresholds for Global Climate Change. Global climate change and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emergingenvironmental concerns being raised on statewide, national, and global levels. Regional, State, and federal

agencies are developing strategies to control pollutant emissions that contribute to global climate change.

However, the CEQA legislation and the State CEQA Guidelines do not currently discuss or provide any

methodology or thresholds for analysis of GHGs, including carbon dioxide (CO2). As a result, the City of Orange

has developed the following threshold to be utilized until a specific quantitative threshold is adopted by the Stateor regional air district.

• The City has determined that a threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year (equivalent to 60,400 pounds per day)

of CO2 is appropriate to determine the significance of a project’s contribution to the global GHG emissions.

Impact Analysis:

a) Less Than Significant Impact. An AQMP describes air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city,

county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into

compliance with federal and State air quality standards. CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed

for consistency with the AQMP. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, the

pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impacton air quality, or the project must already have been included in the AQMP projection. However, if feasible

mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less thansignificant, a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP. The AQMP uses the assumptions and

projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the

AQMP is based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the General Plan are found to be

consistent with the AQMP. The proposed project would not result in any population growth and is consistent with

the City’s General Plan. In addition, the proposed project will comply with State and national ambient air quality

standards. It is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current AQMP, and project emissions

would be below the emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook , April 1993

(CEQA Handbook), as shown in Response 3.b. The analysis provided in Response 3.c also discusses the project’scompliance with the AQMP. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the AQMP, and no significant impact

will result with respect to implementation of the AQMP.

b) Less Than Significant Impact.

Long-Term (Operational) Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts are associated with any change in

permanent use of the project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that substantially increase

emissions. Stationary-source emissions include emissions associated with electricity consumption and natural gasusage. Mobile-source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The

proposed project would not result in any long-term on-site stationary sources and would have minimal off-site

vehicle trips. Therefore, no emissions were calculated for the proposed project from long-term mobile source or

long-term stationary sources. The project’s air quality impact would be less than significant because there would

be no increase in stationary or mobile source emissions.



project’s effect on local CO levels. The Orange County area is in attainment with the State CO standard. Becausethe proposed project would have minimal off-site vehicle trips, no significant CO contributions would occur in the

project vicinity. Therefore, no CO “hot spots” are expected, and modeling of CO emissions is not necessary.

Short-Term (Construction) Emissions. Air quality impacts would occur during construction of the proposedproject from soil disturbance and equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during excavation and site

preparation include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by

construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces as well as by soil disturbances from

excavation and backfilling. The following construction impact analysis summarizes construction emissions and

associated impacts for the project site.

Equipment Exhausts . Based on estimates for projects similar in size, it is anticipated that site preparation

and paving of the building pad will take less than 30 days. Peak daily emissions associated with construction

equipment exhaust for the proposed project during the site preparation and building periods are summarized

in Table A. It is assumed that building will not start until site preparation is finished. This table shows that

construction equipment/vehicle emissions during the construction periods would not exceed any of the

SCAQMD established daily emissions thresholds.

Table A: Peak Day Construction Emissions (lbs/day) by Phase1

Construction Phase CO VOC NOX SOX PM102 PM2.5 CO2

Site Preparation 17.7 3.5 37.0 4.5 3.9 2.0 4,765

Building 21.7 5.0 37.3 2.6 2.7 2.5 9,751

SCAQMD Emissions

Threshold

550 75 100 150 150 55 N/A

Exceed Significance? No No No No No No N/A

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2008.1 It is assumed that there is no overlap of these construction phases.2 Total PM10 daily emission rate with fugitive dust mitigation measures implemented.

CO = carbon monoxide VOC = volatile organic compoundsNOx = nitrogen oxide SOx = sulfur oxidePM10 = coarse particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matterCO2 = Carbon Dioxide lbs/day = pounds per daySCAQMD = South Coast Air Management District

NA = data not available

During construction, as much as up to 9,751 pounds (lbs)/day of carbon dioxide (CO2) will be generated. This

is much higher than the average daily emission rate, as it includes a maximum set of equipment that will not

often all operate on one day and represents a maximum day in terms of overall activity level.

F iti D t F iti d t i i ll i t d ith l d l i d t d fill



PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from site preparation activities during a peak construction day are based on theLST analysis techniques published by the SCAQMD. The PM2.5 and PM10 emissions listed in Table A include

the reductions provided by the SCAQMD’s standard fugitive dust control measures.

Localized Significance. The following analysis was performed per SCAQMD Final Localized Significance

Threshold Methodology (June 2003). The closest sensitive receptor to the proposed site is located to the north

at a distance of approximately 60 ft (18 m). Thus, LST values for 25 m were used. Table B shows the peak

construction-related emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for the Central Orange

County area.

Table B: Summary of Construction Emissions Localized Significance

Emission Rates (lbs/day)Construction Phase CO NOX PM10 PM2.5

Site Preparation 11.2 28.5 3.7 1.9

Building 13.9 27.1 2.5 2.3

Localized Significance Threshold (at 25 m) 512 81 4 3

Exceed Significance? No No No No

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2008.

CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxidelbs/day = pounds per day PM10 = coarse particulate matterm = meters PM2.5 = fine particulate matter

Table B shows that the calculated emissions rates for the proposed construction activities are below the

localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for all sensitive receptors. Therefore, the

proposed construction activities would not cause any short-term, localized, significant air quality impacts.

c) No Impact. As discussed in Response 3.b, no exceedance of SCAQMD’s criteria pollutant emission thresholds

would be anticipated for the proposed project upon compliance with SCAQMD dust control regulations. The

projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below emissions

thresholds established for the region. Cumulative emissions are part of the emissions inventory included in the

AQMP for the project area. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants in thenonattainment status in the Basin is anticipated.

d) No Impact. As described in Response 3.b, the proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of

pollutant emissions. Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to a smallamount of airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants

(i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). Construction contractors would be required to implement

measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following standard City construction practices. Because the

emissions and airborne particulate levels generated by the project are very low sensitive receptors are not



at the end of construction. Hence, GHG impacts related to construction activities of the proposed project wouldnot occur.

As described in 3.b, the proposed project would not result in any long-term on-site stationary sources of emissionsand would have minimal on-going off-site vehicle trips for maintenance purposes. Hence, operation of the

proposed project after construction would not result in any long-term exceedance of the City’s threshold for CO2.Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to global climate change in the form of GHG

emissions.

e) No Impact. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel-powered construction

equipment during construction of the project. These odors, however, would be limited to the site only during theconstruction period allowed by the City, and therefore would not affect a substantial number of people.



4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Potentially

SignificantImpact

Less than

Significant

With

MitigationIncorporated

Less Than

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitatmodifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special

status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia 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, regulationsor by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as definedby Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, or other means?

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ormigratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident ormigratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserysites?

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologicalresources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or

state habitat conservation plan?

Impact Analysis:

a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would install

and operate unmanned telecommunications facilities on and under an existing SCE lattice tower. The proposedfacilities are unmanned, and operation would not change uses on the project site and would have a negligible

increase in on-site activity. The project site is undeveloped with the exception of the two existing lattice tower

facilities; however, the site is highly disturbed by humans, as evidenced by the high amount of ruderal and

nonnative vegetation, dirt bike tracks, and domestic dog scat.

To evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, a Biological Evaluation was prepared for the proposed

project (Appendix A). The primary purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether sensitive or special-

interest species and/or wetland jurisdictional areas would be affected by the proposed project.

The literature review that was prepared for the Biological Evaluation indicated the potential occurrence of seven

special-interest and one sensitive animal species, as well as four special-interest plant species. The special

interest/sensitive animal species identified as potentially occurring in the project area included the following:

• Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)



• San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei)

• Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)

The special-interest/sensitive plant species identified as potentially occurring in the project area included the

following:

• Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita)

• Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis)

• San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina)

• Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)

During the reconnaissance-level assessment conducted for the Biological Evaluation, no sensitive or special-

interest species (i.e., listed species, species proposed for listing, or candidate species) were observed on site.

However, a coastal California gnatcatcher was heard calling from the coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation west of

the proposed project location, but not immediately adjacent. Also, red-tailed hawks were observed and may use

the existing lattice tower for perching and nesting. Although no nests were observed, raptors have been known touse towers for nesting. All nesting birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act; therefore,

Mitigation Measure 4.A has been included to reduce potential impacts related to nesting birds to a less than

significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.A requires construction activities to occur outside of breeding season orpreparation of a preconstruction survey to determine if nests are present. As detailed, if nests are present,

construction would not be permitted to occur until the nests become inactive.

The proposed project site is located within a “Special Linkage Area” (nonreserve) by the Central and Coastal

Orange County Subregion of the CSS Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Special linkages within the

NCCP, even though they are not necessary components of the reserve system, provide supplemental connectivity

and/or habitat that will enhance the function of the reserve system. In accordance with the NCCP, the Special

Linkage Area within the transmission corridor is managed in a manner consistent with providing long-termhabitat protection for CSS and certain Identified Species (including the coastal California gnatcatcher). The

proposed project area does not contain suitable nesting habitat for the gnatcatcher. However, as described

previously, suitable nesting habitat is located west of the proposed project site, but not immediately adjacent.

Because suitable nesting habitat is located in the project vicinity, and because protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher

have not been conducted in this area, Mitigation Measures 4.B through 4.F have been incorporated to ensure no

gnatcatchers would be affected by proposed activities and that impacts to gnatcatchers would be less than

significant.

Based on the predominantly nonnative nature of the vegetation on the project site, the level of previousdisturbance on site, and the small size of the proposed installation, no other candidate, sensitive, or special-status

species are anticipated to be potentially effected by implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, with

implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.A through 4.F, impacts related to candidate, sensitive, or special-status

species would be reduced to a less than significant level.



sensitive natural community. Specifically, no natural habitat, including CSS suitable for the gnatcatcher, would beremoved in conjunction with the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.A through 4.F would

ensure that impacts from the proposed project to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. As described in the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, the project site doesnot contain any federal or State jurisdictional areas. Waters of the United States were absent from the site, and no

water bodies or wetland resources were observed. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial

adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and no impacts

related to wetlands would occur.

d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is within a Special

Linkage Area of the Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP. Special linkages within the NCCP, such as the

project site, provide supplemental connectivity and/or habitat that will enhance the function of the reserve system.

As described by the Biological Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, the site appears to function as a

wildlife movement corridor for locally common small and medium-sized mammals. In accordance with the

NCCP, the Special Linkage Area within the transmission corridor is managed in a manner consistent with

providing long-term habitat protection for CSS and certain Identified Species (including the coastal California

gnatcatcher). Due to the existing lattice towers and associated facilities on the proposed project site, adjacent

residential properties, and existing dirt roads, the proposed project is not anticipated to further affect movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.B

and 4.C will ensure that impacts to wildlife movement remain less than significant

e) Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project site is within a Special Linkage Area

of the Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP. The Special Linkage Area within the transmission corridor is

managed in a manner consistent with the NCCP and provides long-term habitat protection for CSS and certain

Identified Species (including the coastal California gnatcatcher). The proposed project would not change themanner in which the area is managed, and all activities would be consistent with provisions of the NCCP. No

other local policies and ordinances related to biological resources would be affected by the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological

resources and impacts would be less than significant.

f) Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project site is within a Special Linkage Area

of the Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP. The Special Linkage Area within the transmission corridor is

managed in a manner consistent with the NCCP and provides long-term habitat protection for CSS and certainIdentified Species (including the coastal California gnatcatcher). The proposed project would not change the

manner in which the area is managed, and all activities would be consistent with provisions of the NCCP. No

other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan is applicable to the proposed project.



project area. If a nest is found, an appropriate buffer shall be established by the qualified biologist. Noconstruction or other activities will be allowed to occur within the buffer until the young have fledged or

the nest becomes inactive.

4.B Construction activities shall occur outside the gnatcatcher breeding season, which extends from February

15 to August 31. Prior to commencement of construction or installation activities, a qualified biologistshall conduct a preproject survey to ensure that there are no gnatcatchers in the project footprint and to

ensure that no CSS vegetation is removed. Additionally, the project boundaries shall be clearly marked in

the field and the construction crew shall be briefed regarding the importance of staying within the marked

boundary and following the biologist’s instructions. 4.C

A qualified biologist shall conduct site visits at least twice per week during construction and conduct apost-project site evaluation to ensure that construction impacts were less than significant and that the area

is clear from trash or other material. If the monitoring biologist determines that the project has any

potential to harm gnatcatchers or will result in impacts to gnatcatcher habitat, construction shall be halted

and the USFWS will be contacted to determine whether additional mitigation measures are required.



5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Potentially

SignificantImpact

Less than

Significant

With


Less Than

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historicalresource as defined in §15064.5?

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeologicalresource pursuant to §15064.5?

(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site orunique geologic feature?

(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formalcemeteries?

Impact Analysis:

a) No Impact. A cultural resource records search was preformed by LSA in April 2007 (attached as Appendix B)

to identify all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 0.5 mi radius of the project boundary

and to review known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, the records search included an

examination of the California State Historic Resources Inventory, which includes the National Register of

Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest, and various local historicregisters.

The cultural resources record search concluded that there are no recorded historical resources located within 0.5

mile of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not cause an adverse change to

the significance of an historical resource, and impacts related to historical resources would not occur.

b) No Impact. Refer to 5.a. The cultural resources record search concluded that there are no recorded

archaeological resources within 0.5 mile of the project site. The field survey indicated that there are no

archaeological properties within or adjacent to the project area, and ground visibility in the project area was good

to excellent. The proposed project is located in an upland ridgetop environment that is not sensitive for prehistoric

resources and the potential for buried resources to be present is not likely given the landform context.

The project area is also located within an electrical transmission corridor. The area around the existing lattice

tower where the proposed equipment will be located has been graded level for access to the tower. In addition, an

approximate 10 m strip along the northern portion of the corridor has been graded and landscaped. The remainder

of the corridor appears to have been only surficially disturbed by dirt roads. Therefore, based on conclusionswithin the Archaeological Study prepared for the proposed project, archaeological resources are not anticipated to

be present within and adjacent to the project site. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would be

minimally invasive to the existing native lands, as the trenching for the conduit routes would extend through the

previously landscaped area. Hence, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.



trenching for the conduit routes would extend through the previously landscaped area. Therefore, the proposedproject is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique

geologic feature.

d) Less than Significant Impact. As described above, areas of the project site have been previously disturbed bydevelopment of the existing lattice towers, grading for dirt roads, and grading for landscaping. In addition,

implementation of the proposed project would be minimally invasive to the existing native lands, as the trenching

for the conduit routes would extend through the previously landscaped area. Therefore, the proposed project is not

anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, Mitigation Measure 5.A is proposed in the unlikely event

human remains are encountered during construction activities.

Mitigation Measure

Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure that potential impacts to human remains resulting

from project implementation would be reduced to a less than significant level.

5.A In the event that human remains are encountered during construction activities, State Health and Safety

Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a

determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. TheCounty Coroner shall be immediately notified of the find. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric,

the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will

determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The landowner shall give permission to the MLD

to inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of

notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of

human remains and items associated with Native American burials.



6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

Potentially

SignificantImpact

Less than

Significant

With


Less Than

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

(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 recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the StateGeologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known

fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become

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

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform

Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks oralternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for

the disposal of waste water?

Impact Analysis:

a.i) No Impact. As with all of Southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground motion resulting

from earthquakes on nearby faults. There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults or fault tracescrossing the site. Therefore, the project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zone (known as Special Studies Zones prior to January 1, 1994). The proposed project would not result in a

significant environmental impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and no mitigation is required.

a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site, and all of Southern California, is located in an

active seismic region. The Safety Element of the City of Orange General Plan states that no major faults traverse

the City. However, several major fault systems, including the San Andreas and Newport-Inglewood fault zones,

cross the region. Movement along either the San Andreas or Newport-Inglewood fault zone has the potential to

cause widespread upset in the City of Orange. The Safety Element states that if the San Andreas Fault producesan earthquake of 8.3 Richter Magnitude, groundshaking effects would be VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale

(Safety Element Figure S-2). Similarly, a maximum credible earthquake of 7.5 Richter Magnitude occurring along

the Newport-Inglewood fault system would also produce groundshaking of VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale

(Safety Element Figure S-3). As shown in the Safety Element (Figure S-1), VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale

would produce shaking that would be felt by all; however, damage to structures would be slight. The local faults,



equipment are limited, as the estimated groundshaking from maximum probable events is anticipated to produceonly slight damage to structures and because the project would be implemented in accordance with the California

Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators, and all applicable City codes and ordinances,

including the following Chapters of the City’s Municipal Code: Chapter 15.04 Uniform Building Code, Chapter15.12 Uniform Mechanical Code, Chapter 15.24 National Electric Code, and Chapter 15.32 City of Orange Fire

Code. Therefore, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be considered less than significant.

a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Damage from earthquakes may result from liquefaction, which occurs when

loose, unconsolidated, water-laden soils are subject to shaking, causing the soils to lose cohesion, and the soil

behaves as a fluid for a short period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur at depths shallower than 50

ft below the ground surface. The City’s General Plan Safety Element states that liquefaction hazards exist in twoareas of the City, at the Villa Park Reservoir and along the Santa Ana River. As shown on Figure S-4 of the

Safety Element and on the State of California Seismic Hazard Map for the Orange 7.5-minute quadrangle, the

proposed project area is not within an identified liquefaction area. Further, the historical high groundwater is

expected to be greater than 50 ft below the existing grade. In addition, because the proposed project is located

within an electrical transmission corridor that is undeveloped with exception of the two existing lattice towers and

their associated facilities, and because the proposed project consists of installing an unmanned

telecommunications facility, risks to people and structures from potential liquefaction risks are limited. The

project would be implemented in accordance with the California Building Code, Building Officials and Code

Administrators, and all applicable City codes and ordinances, including those listed in a.ii above. Therefore,impacts related to liquefaction risks are considered less than significant.

a.iv) Less than Significant Impact. Landslides triggered by earthquakes have historically been a significant

cause of earthquake damage. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides are steep slopes in

poorly cemented or highly fractured rocks, areas underlain by loose weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to

existing landslide deposits. Hillside areas in the northeastern portion of the City, in the vicinity of the proposed

project site are identified as potential landslide areas. However, the proposed project site is not within orimmediately adjacent to an identified earthquake induced landslide area, as shown on the State of California

Seismic Hazard Map for the Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle and the City’s Safety Element Composite Map of

Environmental Hazards (Figure S-4).

Potential adverse effects of landslides on the project site are limited because the proposed project is located within

an electrical transmission corridor that is undeveloped with exception of the two existing lattice towers and

associated equipment. Furthermore, because the proposed project consists of installing unmanned

telecommunications facilities (nonhabitable structure) and would be implemented in accordance with the

California Building Code and compliant with all applicable City codes and ordinances, including those listed ina.ii above, risks related to potential landslides are limited. Therefore, impacts related to landslides are considered

less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project includes minor trenching and backfilling



c) Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the project site is not identified as a landslide hazard area

or other area of environmental hazard within the City’s Safety Element (Response 6.a.iv). Also, as described

above (Response 6.b) disruption to soils from implementation of the proposed project would be minor, andimpacts related to unstable soil conditions are not anticipated.

Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. Lateral

spreading is characterized by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass

involved along potentially liquefiable layers. Even though the area surrounding the project site is hillside, the

topography of the project site is relatively flat and the liquefaction potential on site is very low. Under these

circumstances, the potential for lateral spreading at the subject site is considered very low.

Similarly, the project site is not located within an area of known subsidence that may be associated with

groundwater or petroleum withdrawal, or peat oxidation. Earthquake-induced settlement is compression of the

underlying loose soils due to liquefaction or densification that occurs during strong ground shaking and causes

uneven settlement of the ground surface. The potential for soil liquefaction is considered low and, accordingly,

the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement is low. Further, because the proposed project consists of installing unmanned telecommunications facilities on an existing lattice tower within a primarily undeveloped

electrical transmission corridor, risks related to unstable geologic units or soils are limited. The project would be

implemented in accordance with the California Building Code and all applicable City codes and ordinances,

including those listed in a.ii above. Compliance with the standard State and local building requirements wouldreduce potential project impacts related to the potential of unstable geologic units and soils to a less thansignificant level.

d) Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain types of clay minerals that occupy considerably more

volume when they are wet or hydrated than when they are dry or dehydrated. Volume changes associated withchanges in the moisture content of near-surface expansive soils can cause uplift or heave of the ground when they

become wet or, less commonly, cause settlement when they dry out. The soils underlying the project site include

clay material, which is considered expansive. The project would be implemented in accordance with the

California Building Code and all applicable City codes and ordinances, which would reduce potential impacts

related to expansive soils. Further, because the proposed project does not include any habitable structures and theproposed equipment would be unmanned, anticipated risks related to expansive soils are limited to the proposed

equipment. Because the potential impacts related to expansive soils are limited, impacts are considered less than

significant and no mitigation is required.

e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposalsystems. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur with implementation of the proposed project.



7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

Potentially

SignificantImpact

Less than

Significant

With


Less Than

SignificantImpact NoImpact

(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through theroutine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment throughreasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing orproposed school?

(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sitescomplied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a planhas not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public useairport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area?

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project resultin a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent tourbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Impact Analysis:

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of installing unmanned telecommunications

facilities on an existing lattice tower within a primarily undeveloped electrical transmission corridor. Installationof the new equipment is not anticipated to involve substantial quantities of hazardous materials, such as cleaners,

solvents, and adhesives. After installation of the new equipment, the only project-related activity on site would be

periodic maintenance of the equipment, which would be similar to the current maintenance activities for the

existing equipment on the project site. Hence, implementation of the proposed project would not change the

existing operational conditions in the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. The existing and

anticipated project-related maintenance activities do not involve significant use of hazardous materials. Therefore,

the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be considered less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact. As described in 7.a above, installation of the new equipment is not anticipated

to involve substantial quantities of hazardous materials and the only project-related activity on site after

installation would be periodic maintenance of the new equipment, which does not involve significant use of



a significant hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardousemissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an

existing or proposed school and no impact would occur.

d) No Impact. There are no sites within the City of Orange, including the project site, that are listed on theDepartment of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List). Due to this and the

reasons described previously, there are no known chemicals associated with project implementation or operation

of the proposed telecommunications facility that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment.

As such, there are no potential impacts associated with this issue area.

e) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a

public airport or public use airport. The closest airports to the project site include John Wayne Airport, which is

located approximately 14.4 miles south, and Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 14.3

miles west. Therefore, impacts related to airport-related safety hazards would not occur.

f) No Impact. The proposed project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and is not anticipated to

result in airport-related safety hazards.

g) No Impact. The proposed project consists of installing unmanned telecommunications facilities on and under

an existing lattice tower within a primarily undeveloped electrical transmission corridor that is designated for

open-space uses. The proposed project would not change any streets or obstruct or impact any transportation

routes that could be used for emergency evacuations out of the area. Therefore, no impacts associated with this

issue would occur.

h) No Impact. The proposed project consists of installing unmanned telecommunications facilities on and under

an existing lattice tower within a primarily undeveloped electrical transmission corridor that is designated for

open-space uses. The proposed project site is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area, as

identified in the City’s Safety Element (Figure S-4, Composite Map of Environmental Hazards). Implementation

of the proposed project would also require adherence to the following Chapters of the City’s Municipal Code:

Chapter 15.04 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 15.12 Uniform Mechanical Code, Chapter 15.24 National

Electric Code, and Chapter 15.32 City of Orange Fire Code. Additionally, the project would be in compliance

with any further guidelines from the City of Orange Fire Department related to fire prevention and is subject to

approval by the City’s Building Department. Operational activity on site would be limited to periodicmaintenance of the new equipment and is not anticipated to create a substantial fire risk or potential hazard.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death

from wildfires.



8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

Potentially

SignificantImpact

Less than

Significant

With


Less Than

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer

volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., theproduction rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level whichwould not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits havebeen 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 whichwould result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantiallyincrease 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 storm water drainage systems or provide substantial

additional sources of polluted runoff?

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federalFlood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard

delineation map?

(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede orredirect flood flows?

(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee ordam?

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

(k) Potentially impact storm water runoff from construction activities?

(l) Potentially impact storm water runoff from post-construction activities?

(m) Result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment

maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materialshandling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?

(n) Result in the potential for discharge of storm water to affect the beneficialuses of the receiving waters?

(o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of

storm water runoff to cause environmental harm?

(p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surroundingareas?





the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area, and the project would not result in erosion or siltation on or off site. Hence, impacts related to this issue are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of installing equipment on and under an existing

lattice tower within an electrical transmission corridor that is designated for open-space uses. The improvements

would not alter the existing drainage pattern on or off site, and there are no streams or rivers that would be altered

that would result in flooding on or off site. Implementation of the proposed project includes adding impervious

area to the existing cement foundation in order to mount the equipment cabinets. Although increasing the cement

foundation on the site would slightly increase the impervious surface at the site, the increase would not result in

an increase in the volume of surface runoff that would result in on- or off-site flooding. Hence, impacts related to

this issue are anticipated to be less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. See Responses to 8.a., 8.c., and 8.d. above. As stated above, development of the

proposed project would not increase the volume of runoff from the project site and would therefore not exceed the

capacity of the existing storm water drainage system. The project would be required to implement the conditionsprescribed in the City’s LIP, which requires implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to prevent

pollutants of concern from reaching the storm drain system. With implementation of the conditions prescribed in

the City’s LIP, the DAMP, and the general NPDES Permit for Construction Activities, the proposed project

would not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

f) Less than Significant Impact. See Response to 8.a.

g) No Impact. The proposed project consists of installing unmanned telecommunications facilities on and underan existing lattice tower within a primarily undeveloped electrical transmission corridor that is designated for

open-space uses. No housing is proposed as part of the project. In addition, the project site is not located within a100-year flood hazard area. The project is located in Zone X (Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06059C0154H,

February 18, 2004). Zone X includes (1) areas within the 500-year flood zone, (2) areas of 100-year flood with

average depths of less than 1 ft or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile, and (3) areas protected by levees

from 100-year flood. Therefore, the project does not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, and noimpacts would occur.

h) No Impact. As discussed in 8.g, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped

on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area and the City’s Safety Element Composite Map of EnvironmentalHazards (Figure S-4). Further, the proposed facility would not be located in an area that would impede or redirect

flood flows. No impacts related to flooding would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

i) N I S R 8 d 8 h b Th j i i l d id f h 100 fl d l i





o) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to 8.d.

p) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to 8.c.



9. LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Physically divide an established community?

(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of anagency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to thegeneral plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communityconservation plan?

Impact Analysis:

a) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not divide an established community since the

proposed telecommunications facility will be located on and under an existing lattice tower in an area that is

designated for open-space uses. The proposed project would not change the existing uses of the project site. The

proposed project will also not disrupt or modify the existing roadway network or affect or disrupt residentialneighborhoods in the project vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the

physical division of any established community, and no mitigation is required.

b) No Impact. The proposed project site is designated for open-space uses in the City’s General Plan Land UseElement and has a Zoning designation of PC, both of which are consistent with the existing uses on the project

site. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunication equipment on and under an existing lattice

tower on the project site. Since the proposed project does not include changes to the existing land use or zoning

designations, and would not change the character or existing uses of the project site, the proposed project is

considered to be consistent with both the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan and the City’s ZoningOrdinance. Further, the proposed project is not in conflict with any other applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to conflicts with any land use plan,

policy, or regulation that has been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

c) Less than Significant Impact. As described in 4.a through 4.f, the proposed project site is within a “Special

Linkage Area” of the Central and Coastal Orange County Subregion of the CSS NCCP. The Special Linkage Area

within the transmission corridor is managed in a manner consistent with the NCCP and provides long-term habitat

protection for CSS and certain Identified Species. The proposed project would not change the manner in whichthe area is managed, and all activities would be consistent with provisions of the NCCP. No other approved local,

regional, or State habitat conservation plan is applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project

would not result in significant impacts related to conflicts with a NCCP or HCP. Additional discussion and

analysis related to biological resources, including mitigation measures, are located in Section 4 (Biological

Resources) of this IS/MND



10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Potentially

SignificantImpact

Less than

Significant

With


Less Than

SignificantImpact NoImpact

(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would beof value to the region and the residents of the state?

(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resourcerecovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other landuse plan?

Impact Analysis:

The following response applies to Questions 10.a. and 10.b.

a) and b) No Impact. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

(SMARA), which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands.

Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership.

The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs):

• MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or

where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence

• MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where

it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence

• MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated

• MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone

Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by

demonstrated mineral resources or located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated

resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally

significant.” Such designations require that a Lead Agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas be

made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance of themineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency’s jurisdiction.

Significant mineral resource deposits in the City are primarily limited to the sand and gravel resources contained

in and along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Sand and gravel resources are referred to collectively as

“aggregate.” Aggregate is the primary component of Portland cement concrete, a material widely used in the

construction industry. Sand and gravel resources in the City’s planning area provide valuable sources of aggregatematerial for new construction. These resources benefit the region as a whole and are therefore regionally

significant.



These resource areas designate Resource Sector G, adjacent to the Santa Ana River; Resource Sector J, in andaround Santiago Creek; Sector L, between Irvine Park and Santiago Dam in Santiago Creek; Sector M, located

under Santiago Reservoir (Irvine Lake); and Sector N, beginning near Santiago Reservoir in Santiago Creek to the

planning area boundary, as “Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Areas.”

The project site is not located in any of the resources areas identified in the City’s General Plan (Figure OSC-2).The project site is classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as being located in

MRZ-1, indicating that the project site is located in an area where no significant mineral deposits are present, or

where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

As previously stated, the project site is primarily undeveloped open-space land, with exception of the two existinglattice towers and their associated equipment. There are no mineral extraction activities occurring on site. In

addition, the project site is designated for open-space land uses, not “Sand and Gravel Extraction” (SG) on the

City’s Land Use Map. The proposed project would not result in the loss of a valuable commercial or locally

important mineral resource. No significant impacts related to mineral resources would result from project

implementation, and no mitigation is required.



11. NOISE. Would the project result in:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standardsestablished in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable

standards of other agencies?

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

(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing without the project?

(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan

has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the projectarea to excessive noise levels?

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project

expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noiselevels?

Impact Analysis:

a) No Impact. The City’s Noise Ordinance establishes the maximum permissible noise level that may intrude into

a neighbor’s property and noise level standards for various land use categories affected by stationary noise

sources. However, the City’s Noise Ordinance Code 8.24.070 provides exemptions from the City’s noise

regulations, which include “Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real

property [is exempt from the City’s regulations], provided said activities do not take place between the hours of

8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday.”

Short-Term Impacts. Residential uses north of the proposed project are located approximately 60 ft from the

project site. During construction activities, there would, at times, be intermittent construction noise in the

project area exceeding the existing ambient noise levels. However, construction of the project would not

significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site because the short-term construction activities

(anticipated to be eight weeks in duration) would occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,

Monday through Saturday, and would be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. As a result, the

proposed project would not result in construction noise beyond the City’s regulations and substantial short-term noise impacts associated with the proposed project would not occur.

Long-Term Impacts. Because the proposed project would provide unmanned telecommunications

equipment, implementation of the project would not result in an increase in daily traffic trips. Operation of the



b) No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would involve minor trenching, construction of a cement pad,

and installation of the telecommunication equipment on the cement pad and existing lattice tower. These

construction/installation activities would not result in significant groundborne vibration or groundborne noise onproperties adjacent to the project site. Operation of the unmanned telecommunication equipment would not

generate any groundborne noise or vibration. As described in Response 11.b, maintenance activities wouldinvolve optimizing the equipment and would not result in groundborne noise or vibration. Therefore, no

significant groundborne noise or vibration impacts would occur.

c) No Impact. As described in Response 11.a, implementation of the proposed project would not result in anincrease in daily traffic trips in the project vicinity and, therefore, would not increase by any substantial amount

the traffic noise along access roads leading to the project site. As described previously, operation of the project isanticipated to result in one monthly vehicle trip. Additionally, operation of the unmanned telecommunication

equipment would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Hence, the existing sensitive receptors would not be impacted by the proposed project, and the proposed project

would not result in impacts related to increases in ambient noise.

d) No Impact. As described in Response 11.a, although there would, at times, be intermittent noise in the project

area during construction, the project would be implemented in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, and itwould not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. Operation of the proposed project as described

in Response 11.a, would result in the generation of minimal noise and would not exceed the regulations of the

City’s noise ordinance. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to temporary or periodic

increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

e) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 14 miles north of John Wayne Airport and 14 miles east

of Fullerton Municipal Airport. Further, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The

proposed project will not create any new noise-sensitive land use or add any sensitive users, and due to thedistance to existing airport facilities, no impacts related to airport noise would occur.

f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there are no

impacts related to this issue. Refer to Response 11.e for a discussion of noise impacts related to public airports.



12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through

extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere?

(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Impact Analysis

a) No Impact. Since the proposed project is not a residential project, but rather installation of telecommunications

equipment on an existing lattice tower within an area designated for open-space uses, direct population growth

caused by the project is not expected. Installation of the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately

eight weeks and operation activities of the proposed project would be limited to maintenance activities. These

installation and maintenance activities are anticipated to employ people who reside within surrounding

communities and are not anticipated to result in population growth. No new employment is created by theproposed unmanned improvement. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the

population growth forecasts for the City. Therefore, the proposed project will not induce substantial population

growth in the area either directly or indirectly, and no mitigation is required.

b) No Impact. The project site is designated for open-space uses and is primarily undeveloped with exception of

the two existing lattice towers and their associated equipment. No housing units are located on the project site,

and housing displacement impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, the proposed

project will not result in an impact related to housing displacement, and no mitigation is required.

c) No Impact. The project site is designated for open-space uses and is primarily undeveloped with exception of

the two existing lattice towers and their associated equipment. No housing units or other forms of temporary

housing are located on the project site, and no people will be displaced as a result of project implementation.

Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an impact related to the displacement of people, and nomitigation is required.



13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associatedwith the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmentalimpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times orother performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire Protection?

ii) Police Protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

Impact Analysis

a)i) No Impact. The City of Orange Fire Department (Fire Department) provides fire protection and

emergency services throughout the City. The Fire Department consists of 136 members who serve the

City of Orange. The minimum on-duty staff is 39 persons. The Fire Department has firefighters andparamedics located in eight fire stations throughout the City. The closest station to the project site is

located at 5725 East Carver Lane, which is approximately 1.3 miles from the project site.1

The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing lattice towerwithin an area that is designated for open-space uses. Operational activities would be limited to

maintenance of the equipment on site, which would not substantially increase the number of on-site

visitors and personnel. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase demand for fire and

emergency medical services.

Further, the project will comply with all Fire Department requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 15.32,

City of Orange Fire Code) and California Fire Code (Fire Code) requirements. The purpose of the Fire

Code is to prescribe regulations to govern conditions considered hazardous to life and property from fire

or explosion. Project compliance with requirements set forth in the Fire Code will provide fire protection

and reduce potential impacts related to fire services.

As described, the proposed project will not increase the demand for fire services and thereby would not

significantly impact emergency response times or fire facilities in the project vicinity. Therefore, withproject implementation, the response profile for the project area will remain unchanged in terms of

service delivery, staffing requirements, facilities, and equipment. Hence, no significant impacts to fire

protection services are expected as a result of project implementation.



The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing lattice towerwithin an area that is designated for open-space uses. Operational activities would be limited to

maintenance of the equipment on site. The proposed project would not substantially increase the number

of on-site visitors and personnel and would not increase demand for police services. Therefore, the PoliceDepartment will be able to continue to provide services at the same levels that are currently provided to

the City, and no impact to police services is expected as a result of project implementation.

iii) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing

lattice tower within an area that is designated for open-space uses. Operational activities would be limited

to maintenance of the equipment on site. The proposed project would not substantially increase thenumber of on-site visitors and personnel or otherwise generate additional population in the area. The

proposed project does not include any changes to existing school facilities, nor would the project increasedemand for school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact school facilities, and no

mitigation is required.

iv) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing


to maintenance of the equipment on site. The proposed project would not induce population growth that

would generate an increased demand for recreational facilities, nor does the project include theconstruction of recreation facilities. Therefore, it is not anticipated that recreation facilities or the

availability of recreation resources within the City will be affected by project implementation, and no

mitigation is required.

v) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing


to maintenance of the equipment on site. The proposed project will not increase the number of on-site

visitors or employees. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact other public facilities (e.g.,libraries) in the City, and no mitigation is required.



14. RECREATION. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regionalparks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical

deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction orexpansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment?

Impact Analysis

The following response applies to Questions 14.a and 14.b.

a) and b) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on anexisting lattice tower within an area that is designated for open-space uses. As stated in Section 12, the proposed

project would not induce population growth. As such, the proposed project would not generate an increased

demand for recreational facilities, nor does the project include the construction of recreation facilities. Therefore,

it is not anticipated that recreation facilities or the availability of recreation resources within the City would beaffected by project implementation, and no mitigation is required.



15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existingtraffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial

increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio onroads, or congestion at intersections)?

(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard

established by the county congestion management agency for designatedroads or highways?

(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in

traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves ordangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternativetransportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Impact Analysis:

a) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing lattice

tower within an area that is designated for open-space uses. Operation activities of the proposed project would be

limited to maintenance activities. The proposed project would not change the existing uses of the project area or

result in additional visitors to the project site and is not expected to cause an increase in traffic. Similarly,

installation of the proposed improvements would be short-term and is also not anticipated to result in a substantial

increase in traffic. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to traffic andcapacity of the street system.

b) No Impact. Refer to Item 15.a. The proposed project would not change the existing uses of the project area or

result in additional visitors to the project site and is not expected to cause an increase in traffic. Likewise, the

proposed project would not individually or cumulatively exceed the LOS standard established by the Orange

County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Therefore, no impacts related to the CMP would result from

project implementation.

c) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is located approximately 14 miles

north of John Wayne Airport and 14 miles east of the Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, the proposed

project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. In addition, the proposed project is unmanned and

ld t d l t th Cit f O h th t i i i t l ld lt Th f th



conditions. No incompatible uses that would pose traffic safety hazards are anticipated on the project site.Therefore, there are no impacts related to hazards of a design feature.

e) No Impact. The proposed project would result in installation of unmanned telecommunication equipment on

and under an existing lattice tower within an area designated for open-space uses. The project site has existinggraded dirt roads that are utilized by maintenance vehicles and provide access to the adjacent public right-of way.

The proposed facility would have no impact on emergency access within and around the area and would not

impact the existing roads on site. Construction vehicles required for installation of the new facilities would be on

site for a limited period of time and are not anticipated to impact emergency access to the site or adjacent areas.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

f) No Impact. The proposed project would result in installation of unmanned telecommunication equipment on

and under an existing lattice tower within an area designated for open-space uses. Operational activities for the

project are limited to maintenance activities that are generally preformed by a single technician. Therefore, the

proposed project would not result in an increased demand for parking in the project area or result in inadequate

parking capacity.

g) No Impact. The project would install unmanned telecommunication facilities on and under an existing latticetower. The project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

No alternative transportation facilities such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks will be impacted by implementation

of the proposed project. Therefore, there are no impacts related to alterative transportation, and no mitigation is

required.



16. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional WaterQuality Control Board?

(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatmentor collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilitiesor expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could causesignificant environmental effects?

(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existingentitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves

or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’sprojected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

(f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate

the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solidwastes.

Impact Analysis:

a) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing lattice

tower within an area designated for open-space uses. The proposed equipment would not generate any wastewater

during construction or operation and is not subject to the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. No

impacts would occur. Refer to Section 8 for a discussion of storm water runoff.

b) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing

lattice tower within an area designated for open-space uses. The proposed equipment would not utilize water

services or require wastewater services. Likewise, the proposed project would not require or result in the

construction of any new water or wastewater facilities. Therefore, no impact related to this topic would occur.

c) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing lattice

tower within an area designated for open-space uses. The proposed equipment would not generate storm water

runoff or require or result in the construction of any new storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, no impactrelated to construction of storm water drainage facilities would occur.

d) No Impact. The proposed project would install unmanned telecommunications equipment on an existing

not require wastewater services or generate any wastewater Therefore the proposed project would not result in



not require wastewater services or generate any wastewater. Therefore, the proposed project would not result inwastewater treatment capacity issues. No impact related to wastewater services would result from the proposed

project.

f) No Impact. The proposed telecommunications facility will be unmanned and operation would not generate anysolid waste. Installation of the new facility is anticipated to generate a minimal amount of solid waste, which

would be a negligible one-time contribution to a local landfill.

The proposed project site is located within the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department’s

(IWMD) service area. The IWMD administers the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The IWMDowns and operates three active landfills and four household hazardous waste collection centers and monitors 12

closed landfills. All three active landfills are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept all types of nonhazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste can be accepted.

The Olinda Alpha Landfill, 1942 North Valencia Avenue, Brea, is the closest IWMD landfill to the project site

and may be utilized to dispose of the small amount of construction waste. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is permitted

to receive a daily maximum of no more than 8,000 tons of solid waste per day. Olinda Alpha Landfill also accepts

3,000–4,000 tons per day of exempt waste.1 The Olinda Alpha property is approximately 565 ac, of which 420 ac

are permitted for refuse disposal. As of June 30, 2004, the remaining air space capacity was 43.57 million cubic

yards, and the landfill is expected to remain open until December 2021. Solid waste generated by the proposedproject would not exceed the capacity of the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Therefore, the proposed project would not

result in an impact related to solid waste and landfill facilities.

g) No Impact. It is expected that the proposed project would comply with existing or future statutes and

regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, or federal law. Therefore, the proposed

project would not result in a significant impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related

to solid wastes, and no mitigation is required.



17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the

environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number orrestrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminateimportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulativelyconsiderable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incrementaleffects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the

effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effectsof probable future projects?)

(c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Impact Analysis:

a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in detail previously, the proposed

unmanned telecommunications facility will not 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 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. The

proposed facility will be located under an existing SCE lattice tower and will be constructed utilizing guidelines

established by the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. To ensure that no

significant impacts result from implementation of the proposed project, mitigation measures have been included

in the following sections of this IS/MND: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources.Therefore, no significant impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project.

b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project, which would install unmanned telecommunication

equipment on an existing lattice tower within an area designated for open-space uses, including an electrical

transmission corridor, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, is not anticipated to

contribute to cumulative environmental effects because the project does not introduce a new land use, increasecapacity, or result in a significant number of vehicle trips. In addition, the proposed project, with implementation

of the mitigation measures provided in the following sections of this IS/MND: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological

Resources, and Cultural Resources, would not result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts. Therefore,

cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.


F EF EF EF E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9 V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C T




APPENDIX A

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS

L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .

2 0 E X E C U T I V E P A R K , S U I T E 2 0 0

I R V I N E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 1 4 9 4 9 . 5 5 3 . 0 6 6 6 T E L

9 4 9 . 5 5 3 . 8 0 7 6 F A X

B E R K E L E Y

C A R L S B A D

F O R T C O L L I N S

F R E S N O

P A L M S P R I N G S

P O I N T R I C H M O N D

R I V E R S I D E

R O C K L I N

S A N L U I S O B I S P O

S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O



M E M O R A N D U M

DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: September 9, 2008

TO:TO:TO:TO: Paul Slotemaker

FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Elizabeth Delk

SUBJECT:SUBJECT:SUBJECT:SUBJECT: Biological Resource Analysis of the Revised Auburn Facility

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum addresses an update of the potential for biological resources at the Verizon

Wireless (Verizon) Auburn Facility located approximately 300 meters (m) southwest of the

intersection of Via Escola and Cannon Street in the City and County of Orange, California.

Specifically, the facility is located in an unsectioned portion of Township 4 South, Range 9 West,

San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, and is depicted on the United States Geological Survey(USGS) Orange, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Appendix A).

The proposed facility will consist of 12 panel antennas mounted to an existing 143-foot (ft) tall

Southern California Edison (SCE) lattice tower that was constructed in 1992. The antennas will be

mounted 61 ft aboveground on the lattice tower. Associated equipment will be located below thelattice tower and enclosed within a 8 ft high chain link fence with vinyl slats. Trenching for a new

telco fiber feed will be conducted from another existing SCE lattice tower located to the south of the

proposed facility. Trenching will continue north and then east for both power and telco along the SCEproperty line to a new SCE tower located on Via Escola. The area surrounding the facility consists of

an electrical transmission corridor located on undeveloped land covered in native and nonnativevegetation and barren soil. Photographs of the project location and surrounding area can be found in

Appendix B.

The primary purpose of the survey was to determine whether special-status or special-interest species

and/or wetland jurisdictional areas will be affected by the proposed project. This memorandum

presents the results of the survey, including the methods used, the existing conditions, and analyses of

impacts to the biological and wetland resources present on site.

METHODS

Federal and State lists of special status species and current database records including the California

L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .



For the purpose of this report, special-status species are those species that are federally and/or State-

listed, proposed for listing, or candidate species. Special-interest species are those listed as species of

concern by the CDFG or those found on CNPS List 1B. The 1B listing in the CNPS Inventory of Rare

and Endangered Vascular Plants of California indicates those species considered endangered by the

CNPS.

A reconnaissance-level assessment of the existing biological resources on site was conducted by LSA

biologists Elizabeth Delk and Kristen Yee during a July 17, 2008, site visit. During the field survey,

biological information pertaining to the site and adjacent areas was noted. Particular attention was

focused on sensitive and special-interest biological resources to determine the presence or potentialoccurrence of any sensitive or special-interest plant or animal species. The biological resources

assessment was based on the literature review and a field assessment.

FINDINGS

Results of Records Search

The results of the literature review indicated the potential occurrence of seven special-interest and

one special-status animal species, as well as four special-interest plant species. The special-interest or

special-status animal species identified as potentially occurring in the project area included the

following:

Wildlife Species

• Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

• Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens)

• Orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra)

• Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi) (coastal populations)

• Mexican long-tongued bat (Choeronycteris Mexicana)

• Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus)

• San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei)

• Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)1

Plant Species

Ch l d b (Ab i ill it )






No other special-status or special-interest animal species (i.e., listed species, species proposed for

listing, or candidate species) were observed or otherwise detected on site at the time of the site visit.

The site does not contain any suitable habitat for any of the species identified in the literature search.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

Most birds and their nests are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act; therefore, LSA

recommends conducting construction activities outside of the breeding season, which generally

occurs for raptor species from January through July. If construction must occur during this timeframe,

a qualified biologist should perform a preconstruction survey to determine whether nests are presentin or around the proposed facility. If a nest is found, an appropriate buffer will be established by the

qualified biologist. No construction or other activities will be allowed to occur within the buffer until

the young have fledged or the nest becomes inactive.

The proposed project will not impact the area where the California gnatcatcher was heard. However,

it is possible for gnatcatchers to forage in the project area. A letter was received from the Carlsbad

Fish and Wildlife Office dated September 7, 2007 (Appendix C), outlining the following avoidance

and minimization measures to be incorporated into the proposed project to ensure that nognatcatchers would be affected by proposed activities:

• The work will be conducted outside the gnatcatcher breeding season, which extends from

February 15 to August 31.

• The project boundaries shall be clearly marked in the field.

• A qualified biologist will conduct a preproject survey to ensure that there are no gnatcatchers in

the project footprint and that no CSS vegetation is removed.• The construction crew will be briefed regarding the importance of staying within the marked

boundary and following the biologist’s instructions.

• The biologist will conduct site visits at least twice per week and conduct a postproject site

evaluation to ensure that the impacts were consistent with what was anticipated and that there isno leftover trash or other material. If the monitoring biologist observes that the project has any

potential to harm gnatcatchers or will result in any impacts to gnatcatcher habitat, construction

will be halted and the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office will be contacted to determine whether

additional avoidance and minimization measures are required.

Due to the existing SCE structures, adjacent residential properties, and a nearby telecommunications

facility, the proposed installation will not further affect any wildlife movement. However, if exterior

lighting is used, it should be limited, with light sources directed away from the wildlife corridor.





Project Vicinity

!

? l!"̂$

%&o(

!"̀$

? q

%&l(

!"$

A ¥

? k

A £ A °

%&g(

A ¾

!"̂$

!"̂$

A ß

A ¾

A Ê

!"a$

? k

A »

? q

!

Orange

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Bernardino

Project Vicinity

Project Location

Project Site


S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8



BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ATTACHMENT B

FIGURE 2












S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8



BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ATTACHMENT C

USFWS CORRESPONDENCE

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEE l i l S i



Ecological Services

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

6010 Hidden Valley RoadCarlsbad, California 92011

In Reply Refer To:

FWS-OR-5437.1

[ds September 7, 2007]

Cindy Leinart

Planning Specialist

INFRA NEXT, INC., a Tynan Group Company

515 22nd

StreetHuntington Beach, California 92648

Subj: Technical Assistance for Installation of a Verizon Wireless Cellular Communications Facility

in the Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement, City of Orange, Orange County,

California

Dear Ms. Leinart:

This letter is in response to your August 17, 2007, electronic mail requesting technical assistance,

regarding the proposed installation of cellular facilities on and adjacent to an existing Southern

California Edison (SCE) transmission pole tower within an SCE easement in the City of Orange,

Orange County, California and potential effects on the federally threatened coastal California

gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, “gnatcatcher”).

The primary mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to “work with others to

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefitof the American people.” Specifically, the Service administers the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(Act), as amended, and provides support to other Federal agencies in accordance with the provisions

of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “take” (e.g., harm,

harassment, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife. Take incidental to otherwise lawful

activities can be permitted under the provisions of section 7 (Federal consultations) and section 10

(private permits) of the Act.

The proposed project site is designated as a “Special Linkage Area” by the Central and CoastalOrange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). In

accordance with the NCCP/HCP, SCE manages this Special Linkage Area in a manner consistent

with providing long-term habitat protection for coastal sage scrub and certain Identified Species

(including the gnatcatcher) within the Special Linkage Area. As such, SCE is primarily responsible

Cindy Leinart (FWS-OR-5437.1) 2

suitable nesting habitat for the gnatcatcher is located adjacent to the proposed project area and



suitable nesting habitat for the gnatcatcher is located adjacent to the proposed project area and

protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher have not been conducted in this area, you have proposed to

incorporate the following avoidance and minimization measures into the project to ensure no

gnatcatchers would be affected by proposed activities:

• The work will be conducted outside the gnatcatcher breeding season, which extends from

February 15 to August 31;

• The project boundaries are clearly marked;

• A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-project survey to ensure that there are no

gnatcatchers in the project footprint and ensure that no vegetation is removed;

• The construction crew will be briefed regarding the importance of staying within the marked

boundary and following the biologist’s instructions;

• The biologist will conduct site visits at least twice per week and conduct a post-project site

evaluation to ensure that the impacts were consistent with what was anticipated and that thereis no left-over trash or other material. If the monitoring biologist observes that the project

has any potential to harm gnatcatchers or will result in any impacts to gnatcatcher habitat,

construction will be halted and the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office will be contacted to

determine whether additional avoidance and minimization measures are required.

We appreciate your coordination on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,

please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist Anna Schmidt of my staff at (760) 431-9440 extension

227.

Sincerely,

Ken Corey [for]

Karen A. Goebel

Assistant Field Supervisor

cc:

Erinn Wilson, California Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos

Lyndine McAfee, Nature Reserve of Orange County


F EF EF EF E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9 V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C TU R N F A C I L I T Y P R O J E C T




APPENDIX B

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY REPORT



A R C H A E O L O G I C A L S T U D Y R E P O R T

VERIZON WIRELESS SER VICES

AUBURN FAC ILITY



A R C H A E O L O G I C A L S T U D Y R E P O R T

VERIZON WIRELESS SER VICES

AUBURN FAC ILITY

CITY OF ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.

1565 MacArthur Boulevard

Costa Mesa, California 92626

Prepared by:

Phil Fulton

LSA Associates, Inc.

20 Executive Park, Suite 200

Irvine, California 92614-4731

(949) 553-0666

LSA Project No. CYG530

National Archaeological Data Base (NADB)

Type of Study: Records Search, Field Survey

Area Covered: 10.5 acres

L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . A R C H A E O L O A R C H A E O L O A R C H A E O L O A R C H A E O L O G I C A L S T U D Y R E P O R TG I C A L S T U D Y R E P O R TG I C A L S T U D Y R E P O R TG I C A L S T U D Y R E P O R T

A P R I L 2 0 0 7 A P R I L 2 0 0 7 A P R I L 2 0 0 7 A P R I L 2 0 0 7 V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S S E R V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S S E R V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S S E R V E R I Z O N W I R E L E S S S E R V I C E S V I C E S V I C E S V I C E S

A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y A U B U R N F A C I L I T Y



INTRODUCTION

LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. to provide an

archaeological study for the Verizon Wireless Services Auburn Facility, located approximately 300

meters southwest of the intersection of Via Escola and Cannon Street in the City and County of

Orange, California. Specifically, the facility is located in an unsectioned portion of Township 4 South,

Range 9 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, and is depicted on the United States Geological

Survey (USGS) Orange, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. Refer to Appendix A for

a map showing the location of the Auburn Facility.

The study was conducted to identify prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or districts listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as required by

36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

of 1966, as amended.

The proposed facility will consist of 12 panel antennas mounted to an existing 143-foot (ft) tall

Southern California Edison (SCE) lattice tower that was constructed in 1992. The antennas will be

mounted at 61 ft above ground on the lattice tower. Associated equipment will be located below the

lattice tower and enclosed within a block wall shelter. Trenching and utility routes have not been

outlined. The area surrounding the facility consists of an electrical transmission corridor located on

undeveloped land covered in native and nonnative vegetation and barren soil. Photographs of the

project location and surrounding area can be found in Appendix B. Site plans are included in

Appendix C.

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is considered the area where ground-disturbing activities will

occur.

METHODS

A records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center, located at California

State University, Fullerton; it included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological

sites, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports within 0.5 mile of

the facility. In addition, LSA examined the National Register, California Register of Historic

Resources (California Register), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of HistoricalInterest. The Historic Properties Directory was inspected for the address of the Auburn Facility.

On March 29, 2007, LSA archaeologist Phil Fulton completed a field survey of the direct APE and a

buffer area As the specific trenching and utility routes have not been determined the entire SCE






RESULTS

The results of the records search indicate that there are no archaeological sites recorded within 0.5 mile

of the facility. There are no properties listed on the National Register, California Register, California

Historical Landmarks, or the California Points of Historical Interest within 0.5 mile of the facility. No

properties are listed in the Historic Properties Directory that match the address of the facility. Seven

cultural resource surveys and/or reports have been completed within one-half mile of the project area,

none of which covered the direct APE.

No cultural resources were observed during the field survey. Ground visibility in the project area was

good to excellent (20 to 100 percent) and averaged 60 percent. The project area is located within an

electrical transmission corridor containing native coastal sage scrub vegetation, nonnative vegetation,

and barren soil. The area around the transmission tower where the proposed facility will be located has

been graded level for construction of the tower. The soil in the project area is rocky sandy loam

derived from weathering of the conglomerate Puente geologic formation. An approximate 10-meter

strip along the northern portion of the corridor has been graded and landscaped for the benefit of an

adjacent residential development. The remainder of the corridor appears to have been only surficially

disturbed by dirt roads. The surrounding area contains modern residential housing developments.

IMPACTS ANALYSIS

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, LSA has assessed the effects of this Verizon Wireless facility on

any archaeological properties. The results of LSA’s study indicate that no archaeological properties are

likely to be affected by the installation of the Auburn Facility. The records search did not identify any

archaeological sites within 0.5 mile of the facility. The field survey indicated that there are noarchaeological properties within or adjacent to the project area, and ground visibility in the APE was

good to excellent. The proposed facility is located in an upland ridgetop environment that is

geomorphologically erosional (deflating), not depositional in character. The APE is not sensitive for

prehistoric resources and the potential for buried resources to be present is negligible given the

landform context. The addition of the wireless facility will not alter the setting due to the existing

transmission lines, modern development, and mature trees in the surrounding area. Therefore, no

further archaeological studies or monitoring are recommended.

If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no furtherdisturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition

pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the

find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native

American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant






ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT LOCATION MAP



Project Vicinity

!

? l!"̂$

%&o(

!"̀$

? q

%&l(

!"$

A ¥

? k

A £ A °

%&g(

A ¾

!"̂$

!"̂$

A ß

A ¾

A Ê

!"a$

? k

A »

? q

!

Orange

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Bernardino

Project Vicinity

Project Location

Project Site






ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY ATTACHMENT B

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS



Viewof theSCE ROW, facility will be located on thetower on theright.



Viewto thesoutheast of thebase of the towerwhere equipmentwillbe located.






ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY ATTACHMENT C

PROJECT PLANS





MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER 1812-08

PROJECT NAME: Verizon Wireless Auburn Facility Project



Mitigation Monitoring Report- Page1P:\RCX0801\Final\Draft MMRP Verizon Auburn.doc

PROJECT LOCATION: SCE Tower/ Via Escola & PortofiraPROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of cellular telecommunications equipment on and under an existing SCE Lattice Tower

LEAD AGENCY: City of OrangeCONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Robert Garcia/ 714-744-7231

APPLICANT: RealCom Associates LLC, Paul Slotemaker/ 503-241-0279 x23CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.:

Verification of Compliance

No. Mitigation Measure

Time Frame for

Implementation

& Monitoring

Responsible

Monitoring

Agency Initials Date Remarks

Aesthetics

1.A Prior to issuance of building permits, theapplicant shall demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the Community Development

Department that the final constructiondrawings include specifications for:

(1) energy-efficient luminaries that control

light energy, and (2) lighting to be directeddownward and away from adjacent land uses

in a manner designed to minimize off-site

spillage. On-site lighting shall be limited to

the minimum needed to comply with

lighting needs.

Prior to issuanceof building

permits

City of OrangeCommunity

Development

Department

Agricultural ResourcesNone Required

Air Quality

None Required

Biological Resources

4.A Construction activities shall occur outside of Prior to City of Orange



Time Frame for

Implementation

& Monitoring

Responsible

Monitoring




Mitigation Monitoring Report- Page2 P:\RCX0801\Final\Draft MMRP Verizon Auburn.doc

g g y

the raptor species breeding season, which

generally occurs from January through July.

If construction must occur during this time

frame, then a qualified biologist shall

perform a preconstruction survey to

determine whether nests are present in or

around the proposed project area. If a nest is

found, an appropriate buffer shall be

established by the qualified biologist. Noconstruction or other activities will be

allowed to occur within the buffer until the

young have fledged or the nest becomes

inactive.

construction or

installation

activity

Community

Development

Department

4.B Construction activities shall occur outside

the gnatcatcher breeding season, which

extends from February 15 to August 31.

Prior to commencement of construction orinstallation activities, a qualified biologist

shall conduct a preproject survey to ensure

that there are no gnatcatchers in the projectfootprint and to ensure that no CSS

vegetation is removed. Additionally, the

project boundaries shall be clearly marked in

the field and the construction crew shall be

briefed regarding the importance of staying

within the marked boundary and followingthe biologist’s instructions.

Prior to

construction or

installation

activity

City of Orange

Community

Development

Department

4.C A qualified biologist shall conduct site visits

at least twice per week during construction

and conduct a post-project site evaluation to

ensure that construction impacts were lessthan significant and that the area is clear

During and after

construction

activities

City of Orange

Community

Development

Department





Time Frame for

Implementation

& Monitoring

Responsible

Monitoring




Mitigation Monitoring Report- Page4 P:\RCX0801\Final\Draft MMRP Verizon Auburn.doc

Geology and Soils

None Required

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

None Required

Hydrology and Water Quality

None Required

Land Use and Planning

None Required

Mineral Resources

None Required

Noise

None Required

Population and Housing

None Required

Public Services

None Required

Recreation

None Required

Transportation and Traffic

None Required

Utilities and Service Systems

None Required

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mydogholly
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Verizon Wireless, Auburn Facility Project MND

Documents