Wireless Facility Negative Declaration Summary

1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication Facility
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Get Homework/Assignment Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
Online Tutoring
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Initial Study
Page
1. Project title.........................................................................................................................1
2. Lead agency name and address......................................................................................1
3. Contact person and phone number................................................................................1
4. Project location..................................................................................................................1
5. Project sponsor’s name and address..............................................................................1
6. General plan designation.................................................................................................1
7. Zoning................................................................................................................................1
8. Description of project.......................................................................................................1
9. Surrounding land uses and setting................................................................................2
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required......................................................2
Environmental Factors Affected.............................................................................................6
Determination...........................................................................................................................7
Environmental Checklist.........................................................................................................8
Discussion
I. Aesthetics.................................................................................................................5
II. Agricultural Resources..........................................................................................9
III. Air Quality.............................................................................................................11
IV. Biological Resources.............................................................................................13
V. Cultural Resources...............................................................................................19
VI. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................20
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................22
City of Ojai
i

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................23
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................25
X. Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................28
XI. Mineral Resources................................................................................................30
XII. Noise.......................................................................................................................30
XIII. Population and Housing.....................................................................................35
XIV. Public Services.......................................................................................................36
XV. Recreation..............................................................................................................37
XVI. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................................37
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems..............................................................................39
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................40
References................................................................................................................................42
Tables
Table 1 Known and Potential Special-Status and Sensitive Species
Within the Proposed Project Area..................................................................15
Table 2 Proposed Tree Removals..................................................................................17
Table 3 Noise Measurement Results ...........................................................................32
Table 4 Summary of Exterior Noise Standards ..........................................................33
Table 5 Typical Noise Levels at Construction Sites ....................................................34
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location...................................................................................3
Figure 2 Site Location.............................................................................................4
Figure 3 Proposed Project Plans...........................................................................5
Appendix A Visual Simulations and Other Project Plans
Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Oak Tree Report
Appendix D Phase I Archaeological Study
Appendix E EMF Study and Existing Wireless Tower Inventory
City of Ojai
ii

INITIAL STUDY
1. Project title: 1290 Grand Avenue Wireless Communication Facility
2. Lead agency
name and address: City of Ojai
Community Development Department
401 S. Ventura Ave.
Ojai, California 93014
3. Contact Person and
Phone Number: Ann McLaughlin, Interim Community Development Director
4. Project location: The project site is located in the rear portions of the 3.85 acre
property currently developed as the Lutheran Church of Our
Redeemer, located at 1290 Grand Avenue. Figure 1 shows the
site’s regional location and Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the
site location.
5. Project sponsor’s
name and address: Jerry Ambrose, Eukon Group
3905 State Street, #7-188
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
6. General Plan
designation: P (Public, Quasi-Public)
7. Zoning: P-L (Public)
8. Description of project:
AT&T proposes to construct a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a 65 ft. mono-
eucalyptus tree within the rear yard portions of a property currently developed with The
Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer located at 1290 Grand Avenue. The area proposed for
wireless communication facility development would be approximately 350 square feet in size
and would be leased from the landowner by AT&T. The proposed structures would be set
back approximately 40 feet south from the southern edge of the Lutheran Church structure.
The wireless communication structures would be set back approximately 211 feet from the
northern property line adjacent to Grand Avenue.
The wireless communication improvements proposed within the lease area would consist of
the following:
• A 65 ft. tall mono-eucalyptus pole would be constructed with up to 12 eight-foot
antennas and ancillary equipment mounted to the mono-eucalyptus pole at
approximately 63 feet above ground level. All antennas would be integrated into the
City of Ojai
1

mono-eucalyptus pole and would be painted a green/brown color to match the pole’s
synthetic tree foliage.
• A 12-foot tall equipment shed approximately 308 square feet in size would be
constructed and painted to match the existing church building. The shed would contain
electrical/telecommunication equipment and a 50KW back-up power diesel generator.
• Landscaping would be installed around the southern and eastern portions of the lease
area to screen the facility.
The existing telecommunication and electrical infrastructure serving the project site would
need to be connected to the proposed facility. The existing telecommunication lines located
underground adjacent to Grand Avenue would be extended approximately 270 feet south via a
conduit trench. The trench would traverse through the existing paved parking lot serving the
church where the lines would ultimately connect to the proposed telecommunication facility.
In addition, electrical and water lines would be extended east from the existing church building
and located in the same trench where they would also be connected to the facility. Please refer
to Figure 3, Enlarged Site Plan.
Access to the project area would be established by a proposed 12-foot wide non-exclusive
access easement that would generally mirror the location of the proposed utility line trench.
The easement would permit access via the existing church parking lot driveway connecting to
Grand Avenue, through the parking lot, and through the undeveloped portions of the site to
the northeast corner of the proposed lease area (See Figure 3). The existing church access route
and all existing parking spaces would not be impacted by the proposed project.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The properties located east, west, and south of the project site have land use designation of MR
(Medium Density Residential). All of these properties contain existing single-family residential
dwellings. The properties located north of the project site (across Grand Avenue) are primarily
agricultural uses within the unincorporated portions of Ventura County.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
City of Ojai
2

Figure 1.
City of Ojai
3

Figure 2.
City of Ojai
4

Figure 3
City of Ojai
5

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
City of Ojai
6

DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Ann McLaughlin
City of Ojai Interim Community Development Director Date
City of Ojai
7

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:
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?
a. The parcel containing the project area is generally flat and has been previously disturbed by
development activities. Specifically, the portions of the parcel fronting Grand Avenue have
been developed as a one-story Lutheran Church and ancillary improvements including a
paved parking lot, monument signage, landscaping, shed structures. Above ground power
and telecommunication lines also run parallel to the northern property line within the
shoulder of Grand Avenue. The rear portions of the site (which include the proposed
project area) are generally flat, undeveloped, and contain informal landscaping and mature
trees. The project site is visible from Grand Avenue and the surrounding properties.
However, these views are obstructed by the existing church structures, the power lines, and
the existing mature trees. Due to the flat condition of the project site combined with the
aforementioned view obstructions, it is not considered a scenic vista. The nearest scenic
vistas would be the foothills located over 3,000 feet to the north and over 5,000 feet to the
south. The proposed construction of a 65 ft. telecommunication pole disguised as a
eucalyptus tree and the associated shed structure and landscaping would be located
adjacent to existing mature trees and the existing church structures and thus it would blend
in to the surrounding environment (Refer to Appendix A – Visual Simulations). Impacts to
scenic vistas would therefore be less than significant.
b. Grand Avenue is not identified as a state scenic highway and the existing Lutheran Church
on the project site is not identified as a local historic resource. Therefore, the proposed
project would substantially damage views from a scenic highway or views of a historic
resource.
A total of 16 trees are located on the project site, including nine California sycamore trees,
three mulberry trees, two jacaranda trees, and one ash tree. The original location of the
City of Ojai
8

proposed conduit trenching would have required the removal of six trees, five of which
were considered “mature” as defined in Title 4 Chapter 11 of the City of Ojai Municipal
Code. The six trees requiring removal included the three mulberry trees along the proposed
alignment of the underground utilities and the two jacaranda trees and one sycamore tree
located near the proposed mono-eucalyptus antenna and equipment shelter. The trenching
location has since been relocated to the east (as shown on Figure 3) within the existing
paved parking lot, which has resulted in the preservation of the three mulberry trees.
However, removal of the two jacaranda trees and the sycamore tree would still be required
(refer to Section IV, Biological Resources, for further discussion of potential impacts to trees).
View simulations were prepared for the proposed project, which document the project’s
potential impact on scenic resources as a result of tree removal and facility construction
(included in Appendix C). These simulations confirm that the proposed project and the
proposed tree removal would not substantially damage or substantially alter the views
from the various vantage points surrounding the project site (e.g. Grand Avenue, Los
Alamos Drive, San Ramon Way, and Paseo Del Robles). Impacts would be less than
significant.
c. As shown in the visual simulations (Appendix A), the proposed project would slightly alter
the visual character of the project site, as viewed from surrounding properties. However,
the project applicant is proposing to construct a wireless telecommunication tower
disguised as a eucalyptus tree near existing mature trees, which would effectively
camouflage the structure. The proposed installation of landscaping around the visible
portions of the shed structure and the planting of replacement trees near the proposed
facility (see Mitigation Measure BIO-3) would further maintain the site’s visual character.
Impacts would be less than significant.
d. The proposed project would include the installation of one light fixture above the
equipment enclosure door. This light fixture would be pointed down and would be
shielded from view by the existing trees/vegetation and the existing church structures.
The proposed wireless antennas could incrementally increase the amount of glare on the
project site; however, daytime views would not be substantially affected. Light and glare
impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES -- In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
City of Ojai
9

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and
the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. -- Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
a-e. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of agricultural uses as the
proposed project would be located on a currently developed parcel. The remaining
undeveloped portions of site, including the proposed project area, have been previously
City of Ojai
10

disturbed and the land is not used for agricultural purposes. The California Department of
Conservation (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ven10.pdf) does not
designate the project site as being of prime, state or local importance or unique agricultural
resources. The site is not enrolled in the Williamson Act or directly adjacent to enrolled
land. No timber resources are located on-site. No impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
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 pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
a. The project site is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is within the
jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). According to the
APCD Guidelines, to be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), a
project must conform to the local general plan and must not result in or contribute to an
exceedance of the City’s projected population growth forecast. The proposed project would
not generate population growth since it does not include a housing component. The
proposed project would construct a wireless telecommunication facility to improve AT&T’s
wireless service and would not facilitate new development elsewhere in the City. The
proposed facility would be un-manned and thus would not generate permanent
employment. Therefore, the proposed development would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the AQMP. No impact would occur.
b-d. Ventura County is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is a non-attainment
area for the federal and state ozone standards and the state standard for particulate matter
(PM-10 and PM-2.5). The Ventura County APCD monitors air quality and provides
regulatory guidance for the region. In 1989, the APCD adopted thresholds for the Ojai
Valley Airshed for assessing whether a proposed development project would have a
significant adverse impact on air quality. In October 2003, VCAPCD approved updated Air
City of Ojai
11

Quality Assessment Guidelines. This document utilizes those guidelines in its assessment
of Air Quality Impacts. The current threshold states that any project located in the Ojai
Valley Clean Air Ordinance area that emits five (5) pounds of reactive organic compounds
(ROC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) will individually and cumulatively have a significant
adverse impact on air quality.
Construction Related Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would generate
temporary increases in air pollutant emissions due to the use of construction equipment
and potential generation of fugitive dust. There are residential units on adjacent properties,
which are considered sensitive receptors. The APCD has not adopted quantitative
significance thresholds for construction-related emissions since such emissions are
temporary. Grading would not require extensive excavation and would be somewhat
limited in extent, as the site is flat and minimal grading and trenching would be required
prior to facility construction. Implementation of standard dust and emission control
requirements would reduce construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.
The standard dust abatement mitigation measures typically required as recommended by
the APCD include:
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations
shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or
excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of
water should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading
activities.
• Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities
shall be controlled by the following activities:
 All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle
Code §23114.
 All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the
construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to
prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization
materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.
• Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by
the CDPH at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as
water and roll-compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be
periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four
days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the
area shall be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically
treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive
dust.
• During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to
impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation
operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created
by onsite activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either offsite or
City of Ojai
12

onsite. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her discretion in
conjunction with the APCD in determining when winds are excessive.
• Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end
of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
• Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and
subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
Operational Impacts: Long-term operational emissions associated with a proposed
project are those associated with vehicle trips and stationary sources (electricity and natural
gas). As discussed above, the VCAPCD’s current threshold states that any project located
in the Ojai Valley Clean Air Ordinance area that emits five pounds of reactive organic
compounds (ROC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day would individually and
cumulatively have a significant adverse impact on air quality. However, operation of the
proposed wireless communication facility would not generate any daily vehicle trips and
the proposed back-up diesel generator would only operate temporarily during annual
testing and during power outages. The siting of a back-up diesel generator would require
new source review by the Ventura County APCD and the issuance of an Authority to
Construct/Permit to Operate prior to its operation. This would ensure that the diesel
powered generator would meet Ventura County standards for stationary emission sources.
As such, the proposed project would not exceed VCAPCD thresholds and impacts would
be less than significant.
e. No noxious odors would occur as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
City of Ojai
13

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
A Limited Biological Resources Assessment was conducted for the project site by Eukon Group
in July 2013(included in Appendix B). Particular attention was paid to the areas within the
project footprint and the report documented the potential impacts to biological resources as a
result of project construction and operation. The following analysis of biological resources is
based on this Biological Resources Assessment.
a,b,c. Based upon a review of the CNDDB data for the Ojai quadrangle, one federally listed
endangered species is known to exist within the Ojai Quad: southern steelhead- southern
California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). Additionally, two Species of Special Concern
are known to exist: southern steelhead and Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus
femoralis). Eleven special-status, sensitive, and/or special plants are known to occur (Table
1). Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa var. racemosa)
were also observed on the project site. Although neither of these species is considered
special by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), both oak (Quercus spp.)
and sycamore trees are protected within the City of Ojai by City’s Municipal Code, Tree
Preservation Regulations. No state or federal listed rare, threatened, or endangered plant
species were identified on the project site.
City of Ojai
14

Table 1
Known and Potential Special-Status and Sensitive Species
within the Proposed Project Area
Common
Name Scientific Name
Sensitivity
Code/
Status 1
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Potential
to Occur
on Site
Miles milk-
vetch
Astragalus
didymocarpus
var. milesianus
1B.2 Coastal scrub Unlikely
Davidson’s
saltscale
Atriplex serenana
var. davidsonii
1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal Scrub Unlikely
Late-
flowered
mariposa
lily
Calochortus
weedii var. vestus
1B.2
Chaparral, and open, dry sites in
cismontane and riparian woodland at
elevations of 275-1,905 m. Often in
serpentine soil (facultative not obligate).
Unlikely
Plummer’s
mariposa-
lily
Calochortus
plummerae
4.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland, ultramafic
Unlikely
Ojai fritillary Fritillaria ojaiensis 1B.2
Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
lower montane coniferous forest.
Unlikely
Robinson’s
pepper
grass
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Unlikely
White-
veined
monardella
Monardella
Hypoleuca ssp.
Hypoleuca
1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland Unlikely
Ojai
navarretia
Navarretia
ojaiensis
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland
Unlikely
Southern
Coast Live
Oak
Riparian
Forest
None Riparian forest Unlikely
Dulzura
pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus
californicus
femoralis
CDFW SSC
Chaparral, costal scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland
Unlikely
Hoary Bat
HorkeliaLasiurus
cinereus
Broadleaved upland forest, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest, north coast coniferous forest
Unlikely
Southern
steelhead –
southern
California
DPS
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
FE Aquatic, south coast flowing waters Unlikely
City of Ojai
15

Table 1
Known and Potential Special-Status and Sensitive Species
within the Proposed Project Area
1
Notes:
Federal Status (USFWS): State Status (CDFW):
FE Federally Endangered SSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Concern
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List:
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere
4 Limited distribution (Watch list)
0.1 Seriously endangered in California
0.2 Fairly endangered in California
The project site consists of a graded, vacant field and is located near areas of the site
developed with previously permitted church buildings. The surrounding area is urban and
is developed with single family residential uses. The only potential habitat on-site includes
the mature trees, which could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. However, no
nesting birds were observed during field observations. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, because no listed species are known or expected
to occur at the project site. No impact would occur.
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed, and the project site does not
contain any wetland or riparian resources (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-
Mapper.html). Field surveys performed by The Eukon Group and Rincon Consultants, Inc.
also confirmed this condition. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur.
San Antonia Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet to the east-southeast of the project
site. This physical separation would ensure that the proposed project would not directly
remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt this waterway. Moreover, the proposed project
would not require substantial grading or drainage improvements that could re-direct or
increase stormwater flow volumes or contribute to increased sedimentation rates into this
jurisdictional waterway. No impact would occur.
d. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
because project development would occur within an area totaling approximately 350 square
feet which does not contain any of the above referenced biological habitats. The absence of
such plant and animal species were confirmed by the Eukon Group during a site survey
performed on May 7, 2013. Impacts on sensitive plant and animal species would be less
than significant.
City of Ojai
16

The project site is surrounded by urban development and does not contain native habitats
conducive to wildlife movement. In 2005, the South Coast Missing Linkages Project
proposed the Castaic-Sierra Madre Landscape Linkage, which links areas surrounding the
City of Ojai. The northern branch of this linkage follows Kennedy and Cozy Dell Canyons
across Highway 33, while the southern branch crosses Highway 33 south of the community
of Oak View to Sulphur Mountain. These paths converge and follow Santa Paula Ridge,
through portions of Pine Canyon, over Angels Pass, to I-5. Although nearby, the project
site is not located within this mapped wildlife linkage area (City of Ojai Housing Element
Update EIR 2009). No impacts on wildlife movement corridors would occur.
The proposed project would require tree removal, which could impact nesting birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Although no nesting birds were identified
during the tree survey performed on August 21, 2013 (Davey Resource Group 2013), there
is the potential for nesting birds to existing within the trees proposed for removal
depending on the construction timeframe. Impacts would be potentially significant.
e. The potential impacts to on-site trees were assessed as part of an Arborist Report prepared
by Davey Resource Group dated August 30, 2013 (included as Appendix C). In summary,
sixteen trees were surveyed within the vicinity of the project area, with the majority of the
on-site trees concentrated outside of the proposed project area. Eight existing California
sycamore trees (Tree No.’s 1-8) are located within small cut-outs in the asphalt parking lot
area east of the church building. Three mulberry trees (Tree No.’s 9-11) are located in non-
irrigated lawn areas adjacent to the eastern side of the church building. The five remaining
trees (Tree No.’s 12-16) consist of two jacaranda, one California sycamore, one ash, and one
coast live oak. They are located in the non-irrigated field south of the church building near
the project development area.
Based upon review of the proposed development plans, the proposed utility line trenching
and the construction of the wireless communication facility would require the removal of
tree No.’s 12-14, which would include two jacaranda trees, and one California sycamore
tree. Table 2 below describes the characteristics of each tree proposed for removal.
Table 2. Proposed Tree Removals
Tree No. Species
Diameter at
Breast Height
Est. Tree Height
12 Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 10 inches 30 feet
13 California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) 16 inches 40 feet
14 Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 11 inches 35 feet
The City’s Tree Preservation Regulations require the issuance of a Tree Permit prior to: (1)
removing, cutting down, destroying or relocating any oak or a sycamore, heritage or
mature tree; (2) trenching, grading, filling, compacting or placing construction material of
any type in the drip line of an oak or a sycamore, mature or heritage tree; and (3) pruning
live limbs over four (4″) inches in diameter of an oak or a sycamore or heritage tree.
Therefore, the proposed removal of the three trees would require review and approval of a
Tree Permit by the Planning Director. The City’s Municipal Code recognizes oak,
City of Ojai
17

sycamore, heritage and other mature trees as significant historical, aesthetic and
ecological resources and thus the impacts associated with the proposed tree removals
would be potentially significant.
f. The proposed project would be located on a previously developed site that is not subject to
an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (City of Ojai Housing Element
Update EIR 2009). No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to
nesting birds and on-site protected trees to a less than significant level.
BIO-1 Nesting Birds. To avoid the accidental impact of any migratory bird
species or raptors, the removal or pruning of trees shall be conducted
between September 15 and February 1, outside of the typical breeding
season, as feasible. Should avoidance of the nesting season not be
feasible, a qualified biologist/ornithologist shall conduct focused
nesting surveys once per week for 30 days prior to grading or initial
construction activity. The last survey shall be conducted no more than
3 days prior to the start of vegetation clearing activities. Should no
active nests be found then no further mitigation would be required.
Should active nests be found, then avoidance of the nest site with a 50
to 300 foot (potentially up to 500 feet for raptors) non-disturbance
buffer zone would be adequate to avoid take. If active nests are found,
the California Department of Public Health and CDFG would be
contacted to verify the need for and distance of the non-disturbance
buffer zone. The buffer zone area would not be encroached into by
construction work until such time that nesting is completed and the
young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
Once the pre-construction bird surveys are conducted by a qualified
biologist during the proper seasons, the report results, including
survey dates, exact species observed and location of species onsite,
shall be submitted to the California Department of Public Health and
other necessary regulatory agencies.
BIO-2 Obtain Tree Permit. If determined to be necessary based upon final
construction plans, a Ministerial Tree Permit would be obtained for the
thinning, removal, or encroachment impacts to protected trees. A
Permit would be issued by the City of Ojai Planning Department. The
permit shall be received prior to the start of construction.
BIO-3 Protected Tree Avoidance and Tree Removal Replacement. The
location of utility trenching shall be re-routed to avoid removal of Tree
No.’s 12, 13. If utility trench re-routing is not feasible, then impacts to
protected trees shall be minimized by planting one 24-inch box
City of Ojai
18

jacaranda and one 24-inch box California sycamore on-site as part of
the proposed landscaping plan. The final location of the additional
trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant shall
plant one 24-inch box jacaranda tree as part of the proposed
landscaping plan to mitigate impacts associated with the removal of
Tree No. 14. The final location of this tree shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to the
issuance of building permits.
BIO-4 Existing Tree Preservation Specifications. The project shall
incorporate all tree preservation specifications listed in the Tree
Protection Plan (Sheet LJ-1) prepared Davey Resources Group as part
of their Arborist Report dated August 31, 2013. The City shall conduct
period inspections during construction to ensure compliance with these
measures.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
The following analysis is partially based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Record Search and
Site Visit Results Report, which was prepared by Diane F. Bonner, Geoarchaeologist in October
2013. The entire archaeological study is contained in Appendix D of this report.
a,b,d. The archaeological resources records search involved a review of all previously recorded
pre-historic and historic archeological sites within a half-mile radius of the project site, and
a review of all cultural resource survey or excavation reports. This records search was
conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), California State
University Fullerton on May 30, 2013. To identify potential historic resources, the
California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for Ventura County, the National Register of
City of Ojai
19

Historic Places (NRHP), the California Historic Landmarks (CHL), and the California Points
of Historical Interest (CPHI) databases were reviewed. The search results indicated:
1. Two prehistoric cultural resources are recorded approximately 1,400 feet away from the
project site.
2. No historic cultural resources are recorded within ½ mile of the project site.
3. Three historic properties are recorded within a ½ mile of the project site and none are
eligible for National Register listing.
4. No National Register properties are recorded within ½ mile of the project site.
5. No significant historical resources are located within ½ mile of the project site.
6. Thirteen survey or excavation reports were filed for projects within ½ mile of the project
site and none of these reports identified resources on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect cultural or historic resources as
none are located on or within ½ mile of the project site. Impacts related to cultural and
historic resources would be less than significant.
c. The installation of water, telecommunication, and electrical conduit would require new
subsurface trenching and the new wireless communication facility would require the
establishment of concrete footings below grade and an at-grade concrete foundation to
support the equipment shed. This would require an area of ground disturbance totaling
approximately 350 square feet. However, the proposed ground disturbance would occur on a
project site that has previously been disturbed and a site that is surrounded on all sides by
urban development. Impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources would
therefore be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS –
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
City of Ojai
20

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS –
Would the project:
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 as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
a.i-iv. The proposed project involves the installation of new subsurface water,
telecommunication, and electrical conduit, the construction of a wireless communication
tower, and equipment shed. The project would not construct any habitable structures and
is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone or other known fault zone (Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, January 2000; http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/).
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Like much of Southern California, the project site could experience seismic ground shaking
in the event of an earthquake. The proposed project, including the wireless communication
tower and equipment shed would be constructed to withstand potential peak accelerations
onsite, as defined by the California Building Code (CBC) and Universal Building Code
(UBC). Adherence to standards in the CBC and UBC would ensure impacts from ground
shaking would be less than significant.
The project site is not within a State-identified liquefaction hazard zone (California
Department of Conservation, 2003; http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/). Nevertheless,
there is the potential for liquefaction to occur onsite depending on site-specific soil
conditions. However, because the project would be required to adhere to CBC and UBC
standards which address liquefaction hazards, impacts related to liquefaction would be
less than significant.
City of Ojai
21

The topography of the project is flat and thus it is outside of any earthquake induced landslide
hazard areas as delineated by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines
and Geology (Ventura County General Plan, 2005, http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/).
There is no evidence of previous landslides onsite and the proposed project would not
construct habitable structures and thus would not expose people or structures to a substantial
landslide hazard risk. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. During construction of the proposed project, soil disturbance activities could expose topsoil
to the forces or erosion by wind or water. However, standard dust control measures, as
described in Section III, Air Quality, and mandatory compliance with the City’s Municipal
Code (Title 5, Chapter 12), which requires that development be undertaken in accordance
with conditions and requirements established by the Ventura Countywide Stormwater
Quality Management Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit No. CAS063339 and the Ventura Stormwater Quality Management Ordinance No.
4142 would reduce impacts related to erosion to a less than significant level.
c. The project site is not within a State identified liquefaction hazard zone (California
Department of Conservation, 2003; http://gis.ventura.org/CountyView/). The project
would be required to adhere to CBC and UBC standards that address the potential for
soil instability and thus impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.
d. Expansive soils are known to exist in the City of Ojai. The resources most often affected by
expansive soils are unequally loaded structures and rigid flatwork (Ventura County
General Plan, Hazards Appendix, 2005). However, the proposed wireless communication
facility would be constructed in a flat area where the existing church structures do not
show any evidence of having been affected by expansive soils and the aerial extent of flat
work would be limited to a 350 square foot area. Furthermore, the proposed project would
be required to comply with CBC and UBC standards which address hazards associated
with expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e. The project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or other wastewater
disposal systems. No impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
City of Ojai
22

a, b. As discussed in Section II, Air Quality, the project would not generate construction-
related air pollutant emissions that have the potential to exceed established air quality
thresholds. No regular traffic would be generated by operation of the proposed facility other
than the traffic necessary to complete periodic facility maintenance. Although the traffic
associated with periodic maintenance activities and the periodic operation of the proposed on-
site diesel generator could generate minor quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
through the burning of fossil fuels or other emissions of GHGs, the operational GHG emissions
for the project would be a small fraction of the SCAQMD’s greenhouse gas threshold of 10,000
metric tons per year (SCAQMD, “Proposed Tier 3 Screening Levels – Commercial/Industrial
Projects, September 2010). Impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than
significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within ¼
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
City of Ojai
23

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
a. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new wireless communication
facility and ancillary wet and dry utility infrastructure. The proposed facility would be
unmanned, except during the brief periods of maintenance and therefore would not involve
the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous substances, other than the minor
amounts of fuel or other industrial chemicals typically used for facility maintenance.
Impacts would be less than significant.
b. There is no evidence of hazardous materials on the project site (Rincon Consultants, site
reconnaissance completed on November 25, 2013). However, operation of the facility
would emit RF radiation, which has been identified as a possible link to cancer and other
illnesses (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns). The
proposed facility would operate within ATT Mobility’s FCC licensed frequencies and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) states that the maximum permissible
exposure from RF radiation for the general population is between 0.6 and 1 milliwatts per
centimeter squared (mW/cm2
) depending on the frequency of the transmitter (47 CFR §
1.1310). The proposed antenna is designed to transmit most of the signal in a horizontal
direction (parallel to the ground) in order to provide a usable wireless signal around the
site. When the RF energy reaches the ground level, its energy would be reduced to
1/5,000th
of a percent of the maximum permissible exposure level (Telnet Engineers 2013).
These patterns are based upon the typical antenna patterns emitted from ATT antennas.
Moreover, the proposed wireless communication facility would be located at least 190 feet
away from the nearest residential backyards, which would further reduce the signal
strength at potential receptor locations. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. As stated above, there would be no hazardous materials, substances, or waste associated
with project development other than those typically used for routine maintenance. The
closest school is the Topa Topa Elementary School, located approximately 2,000 feet
northwest of the project site. No impact would occur.
City of Ojai
24

d. The project site does not appear on any hazardous material site list compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. The following databases were checked (November 23,
2013) for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site:
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) database;
• Geotracker search for leaking underground fuel tanks;
• Investigations- Cleanups (SLIC) and Landfill sites, Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and
Substances Sites; and
• The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Site Mitigation and Brownfields Database.
The project site does not appear on any of the above lists. No impact would occur.
e, f. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airport. No impact
would occur.
g. The proposed project would not modify any existing access routes into the project site.
Therefore, project implementation would not impede the ability for emergency vehicles to
access the existing church use or the project area. No impact would occur.
h. The project site is listed not by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as
an Undesignated Area (Ventura County General Plan, 2005). The proposed project would
not include any new residential dwellings and would be unoccupied. However, the
introduction of outdoor wireless communication equipment, its associated electrical
infrastructure, and the proposed back-up diesel powered generator could increase the risk
of fire in the event of equipment malfunction. This potential fire risk would be adequately
offset by the installation of irrigation lines to the exterior portions of the project area, the
establishment of a clear area in and around the 350 square foot lease area, and suitable fire
access. Impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
– Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
City of Ojai
25

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering or the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including the
alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
City of Ojai
26

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
a, c-f. The proposed project involves the installation of a wireless communication facility
within a 350 sq. ft. lease area. The proposed shed structure and wireless facility tower
would require the construction of a concrete pad which would incrementally increase the
amount of impervious surface area onsite; however, the proposed improvements would be
surrounded by permeable soils and natural vegetation which would absorb any
incremental increase in stormwater runoff volumes. No substantial change in soil
infiltration rates, drainage patterns or the amount of runoff would occur at buildout of the
project. Impacts would be less than significant.
During construction of the project, trenching and minor grading would temporarily create
the potential for increased erosion and siltation. However, the proposed project would be
required to adhere to the provisions of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality
Management Program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit No. CAS063339, City of Ojai Municipal Code Sections Sec. 5-12.101 et. seq. These
regulations require the establishment of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during
construction to reduce potential impacts to water quality caused by erosion and siltation.
Compliance with mandatory storm water quality protection programs would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level.
b. The proposed improvements would increase the amount of impervious surface area onsite
by approximately 350 sq. ft. Stormwater and irrigation water would continue to infiltrate
the disturbed but pervious soils surrounding the project area. No impacts on groundwater
recharge would occur.
g-j. The project site does not include the construction of housing, nor would the project change
a drainage pattern such that existing housing would be subject to flood hazards. The
project site is not located in either the 100 or 500 year flood plain (Ventura County General
Plan Hazards Appendix, 2005; FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Program and
Ventura County Watershed Protection District). The project site is in Flood Zone X, which
indicates that there is minimal risk of flooding (FEMA Panel No. 06111C0578E). In
addition, the project is of sufficient distance from the coast to preclude risk of seiche or
tsunami, and not in proximity to areas subject to mudflows. No impact would occur.
City of Ojai
27

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING --
Would the proposal:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
a. No residences are located on the project site. The proposed facility would not divide an
established community. No impact would occur.
b. The project site has a General Plan land use designations of Public-Quasi Public. The
proposed installation of a wireless communication facility would not conflict with the land
use designation or the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses within the Public
zoning district. In accordance with Section 10-2.1712 of the City of Ojai Municipal Code,
the proposed wireless communication facility shall be developed, located, and operated in
manner consistent with the applicable standards contained therein. What follows is a
determination of consistency with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
Sections 10-2.1712 (b)(1)(A-F) – These sections establish guidelines for the siting of antennas
and towers, which generally encourage the location of towers in nonresidential areas and
strongly encourage the co-location at new and existing tower sites in order to reduce any
adverse impacts on the community. In addition, this section also encourages the
configuration of towers in a way that minimizes their adverse visual impact.
Consistency Statement: Although the proposed project would not co-locate the proposed
antennas on an existing wireless communication tower, it proposes to locate the tower on a
parcel currently zoned for a non-residential use and a site currently developed with
numerous church structures. The location of the tower is proposed in location that would
be setback from existing residential uses by at least 190 feet and the tower would be
disguised as a eucalyptus tree and surrounded by existing and proposed natural
vegetation. This would reduce any adverse impacts on the surrounding residential
community and would reduce the visual impacts of the facility. The project is consistent
with the above-referenced Municipal Code Section.
City of Ojai
28

Sections 10-2.1712 (b)(2)(A-D) – These code sections require each applicant to inventory all
existing and planned towers that are either within the jurisdiction of the City, or visible
from the border of the City, including specific information about the actual or proposed
location, height, and design of each tower.
Consistency Statement: The project applicant provided an inventory of all existing and
planned wireless communication within the City and beyond. Currently, there is one
existing 77-ft. tall wireless communication tower in the City located at 1116 Maricopa
Highway. This facility was recently expanded to include additional antennas as part of a
co-location request and is disguised as a pine tree to reduce impacts on visual resources.
The other facility closest to the City limits (within 0.5 miles) is located at 12540 Creek Road
in the Mira Monte area of unincorporated Ventura County. This facility is 55 feet tall. The
proposed wireless communication facility would blend into the surrounding natural and
built environment and would enhance wireless communication services in the City of Ojai,
which are currently underserved based upon the overall population density and wireless
communication service demand pool. The project is consistent with the above-referenced
Municipal Code Section.
Sections 10-2.1712 (b)(3)(A-K) – These code sections establish the overall design standards
for towers and antennas and generally require: a finish that will reduce its visual
obtrusiveness, a design that blends with the natural setting and built environment, any
supporting equipment shall be compatible in color with existing structures nearby, no
artificial lighting of the tower, not located on ridge lines or hilltops, a minimum 100 ft.
setback from any off-site residential structure, and not exceeding 65 feet in height.
Consistency Statement: The proposed wireless communication facility would be disguised as
a eucalyptus trees and would be surrounded by landscaping that would blend in with the
surrounding natural and built environment. The proposed equipment shed would be
painted to match the existing colors of the adjacent Lutheran church and landscaping is
proposed around the equipment shed to effectively screen the structure. No artificial
lighting is proposed on the tower portions of the facility and the facility would be setback at
least 190 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. The tower portion of the facility would
be 65 feet in height, which is consistent with the City’s height limitation. Therefore, the
project is consistent with the above referenced code sections.
The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable Municipal Code provisions
and thus impacts would be less than significant.
c. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans are applicable to the
subject site or project. No impact would occur.
City of Ojai
29

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
a, b. The project site is not located in a “mineral resource area” on the County’s Resource
Protection Map, 2008), indicating the absence of known mineral resources. The project
would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources. No impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels 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?
City of Ojai
30

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise?
General Characteristics and Regulation of Noise. The duration of noise and the time period
at which it occurs are important factors in determining the impact of noise on sensitive land
uses. Noise is more disturbing at night than during the day and noise indices have been
developed to account for the varying duration of noise events over time as well as
community response to them. The Community Noise Level Equivalent (CNEL) and the
Day-Night Average Level (DNL or Ldn) are such indices. They are time-weighted average
values based on the equivalent sound level (Leq), which is a constant sound level that
equals the same amount of acoustic energy as actual time-varying sound over a particular
period. The CNEL penalizes noise levels during the night (10 pm to 7 am) by 10 dB to
account for the increased sensitivity of people to noise after dark. Evening noise levels (7
pm to 10 pm) are penalized 5 dB by the CNEL. Appropriately weighted hourly noise
measurements are then combined over a 24-hour period to result in a CNEL. The Ldn also
penalizes nighttime noise levels, but does not penalize evening levels. These two indices
are generally equivalent.
In general, the CNEL may be thought qualitatively as an accumulation of the noise
associated with individual events occurring throughout a 24-hour period. The noise of
each individual event is accounted for in a separate, discrete measurement that integrates
the changing sound level over time as, for example, when an aircraft approaches, flies
overhead, then continues off into the distance. These integrated sound levels for individual
operations are referred to as Sound Exposure Levels or SELs. The accumulation of the SELs
from each individual operation during a 24-hour period determines the CNEL for the day.
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically significant noise levels,
the State of California, various County governments, and most cites in the state have
established guidelines and ordinances to control noise. Based upon the City of Ojai General
Plan, an exterior noise level of 60 to 65 dBA CNEL is considered “normally acceptable” for
residential uses. A noise level of 70 dBA CNEL is considered to be “conditionally
acceptable’ and a noise level of greater than 75 dBA CNEL is considered “clearly
unacceptable” for residences. The 70 dBA CNEL noise level is considered to be the upper
City of Ojai
31

limit of “normally acceptable” noise levels for other sensitive uses such as schools, libraries,
hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and parks. These noise criteria are based upon the
California Office of Noise Control land use compatibility guidelines.
To determine if the proposed project would generate noise that exceeds these standards,
the existing noise environment was characterized by physically taking noise measurements
on the project site. Using these noise measurements as a baseline, both construction and
operational noise was estimated using industry accepted noise values for construction
equipment, and typical manufacturer’s specified noise levels associated with the operation
of the wireless communication equipment. The distance to nearby sensitive receptors along
with any noise attenuation elements were then considered in order to determine potential
noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors (e.g. the residential dwellings located west, east
and south of the project site). Traffic related noise was not considered as part of this
analysis, as the proposed wireless communication facility would be un-manned and would
therefore not generate regular vehicle trips.
a,b,d. Three noise measurements were taken on and near the project site on November 25, 2013.
The results of the noise measurements are summarized in Table 3. Measured Leq ranged from
42.1 to 63.2 dBA. All measurements were taken mid-day and do not reflect the likely highest
noise levels onsite that would be expected to occur during peak traffic periods.
Table 3
Noise Measurement Results
Location
Measured Ambient Noise
(dBA)
Leq a
Lmax b
1. Approximate center of project site near Grand Avenue
(Approx. 21 feet from Grand Avenue centerline)
63.2 82.3
2. Approximate center of eastern site boundary 47.8 66.9
3. Approximate center of western site boundary 42.1 55.5
All measurements were conducted for 20 minutes using an integrating sound level meter.
a
Leq is essentially the average sound level over the measurement period.
b
Lmax is the maximum sound level over the measurement period.
Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase noise in the vicinity of the
project site. Construction noise threshold criteria are provided in the City of Ojai Municipal
Code and are presented below.
Table 4 below summarizes Section 5-11.04 of the Ojai Municipal Code, which sets the
exterior noise level standards for the City of Ojai.
City of Ojai
32

Table 4
Summary of Exterior Noise Standards
Zone Time Period Noise Level (dB)
Residential Zone (Includes Village
Mixed Use)
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 45
Commercial/Industrial Zone
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 65
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 55
Section 5-11.05(c) of the Ojai Municipal Code restricts noise generating construction
activities in the City as follows:
Construction. Any person who operates powered construction equipment, erects,
constructs, demolishes, excavates for, alters or repairs any building or structure within the
City in such a manner as to cause noise to be received by any person beyond the
boundaries of the property on which the construction work is occurring shall comply with
the following:
1. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
weekdays. Construction activities authorized by a valid City permit may, as
warranted by the project, exceed the noise level limits of Section 5-11.04 on a
temporary and short-term basis during the authorized construction hours, as
determined appropriate and necessary by the Community Development
Director.
2. No construction work shall be performed on weekends or City holidays.
3. All construction equipment shall be operated with the standard factory silencer
and/or muffler equipment attached and maintained in good working order.
Project-Generated Construction Noise. Temporary construction noise would be generated by
the installation of the new sub-surface telecommunication, electrical and irrigation lines,
building pad preparation, and the assembly of the mono-pole and equipment shed. Table 5
shows typical noise levels at construction sites at an average distance of 50 feet from the noise
source. Noise levels generally range from about 78-88 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source
during peak construction activity. The nearest sensitive receptor is the single-gamily residence
located approximately 190 feet west of the project area. The maximum temporary
construction-related noise at this most affected location could range from approximately 66-76
dBA, as noise levels generally attenuate by 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance. Such
levels would be expected to occur intermittently for no more than a few weeks during
construction. Due to the City’s restriction of construction activities to daytime periods,
weekends, and holidays, the temporary construction noise would not exceed the applicable
City thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.
City of Ojai
33

Table 5
Typical Noise Levels at Construction Sites
Construction Phase
Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet
Minimum Required
Equipment Onsite
All Pertinent
Equipment Onsite
Clearing 84 dBA 84 dBA
Excavation 78 dBA 88 dBA
Foundation/Conditioning 88 dBA 88 dBA
Laying Subbase, Paving 78 dBA 79 dBA
Finishing and Cleanup 84 dBA 84 dBA
Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, “Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,” prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
No pile driving equipment or other construction equipment capable of generating significant
groundborne vibration would be utilized during construction. Therefore, vibration impacts
would be less than significant.
Project Generated Operational Noise - Operational noise generated by the proposed wireless
communication facility would not be perceived, as the facility would be stationary and its
electrical systems would not generate noise. Furthermore, the facility would be un-manned
and therefore the project would not generate vehicle traffic on local roadways. The only
potentially consistent audible noise source would be the air conditioning units proposed for
the equipment shed to control the interior temperature. The air conditioning units would be
located within an acoustic enclosure and would be located at least 190 feet from the nearest
residential dwelling. Therefore, noise from the project’s air conditioning units would be less
than significant.
To provide power to the facility in the event of a power outage, a diesel powered back-up
generator is proposed within the equipment shed. This generator would only be operated
during the brief periods when power is unavailable. However, noise levels associated with the
generator’s temporary operation (non-enclosed) would be comparable to the operation of
construction equipment at 50 feet as described above in Table 5. The noise levels at the nearest
residential property line located approximately 190 feet to the west could range from
approximately 66-76 dBA, as the noise level would generally attenuate by 6 dBA for each
doubling of the distance. To achieve additional noise attenuation, the diesel powered back-up
generator system would be enclosed within the equipment shed to further reduce the
potential intermittent noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Nevertheless, operation
of the generator from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM could exceed the City’s exterior noise threshold of
45 dBA for residential zones. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant.
e, f. The site is not located near a public or private airstrip. No impact would occur.
City of Ojai
34

Mitigation Measures.
Although operational noise levels exceeding thresholds could occur for no more than a few
hours during a power outage and during the operation of the diesel powered generator
system the following measures would be required to reduce noise impacts to a less than
N-1 Generator Noise Monitoring. During operational testing of the diesel
generator, noise monitoring shall be conducted to determine if noise
levels exceed the City’s exterior residential noise standards specified in
Section 5-11.04 of the Ojai Municipal Code.
N-2 Diesel Generator Noise Reduction. If operation of the diesel generator
would exceed any applicable exterior noise thresholds for residential
uses, the generator shall be equipped with an exhaust silencer or other
appropriate strategy capable of reducing noise levels to 45 55 dBA at
the closest residential property line.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a. The proposed project involves the installation of a wireless communication facility and
associated support facilities. Construction of the proposed project may generate temporary
employment opportunities; however, it is expected that employees involved with
construction of the project would be existing residents in the Ventura County area.
Operation of the project would not create any permanent new jobs. No substantial growth
would occur as a result of operation of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
City of Ojai
35

b, c. The proposed project would be constructed in an area currently occupied by a church.
There is no residential development on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project
would not displace people or housing. No impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
a(i-v). The Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) provides fire protection in
unincorporated Ventura County, which includes the Ojai Valley. Fire Stations 21 (at 1201 E.
Ojai Avenue) and 22 (at 466 S. La Luna Avenue) serve the City and project site. The
Ventura County Sheriff’s Department provides police protection in unincorporated Ventura
County. The Ojai station, located at 402 South Ventura Street, provides full-service policing
to approximately 30,000 residents of the Ojai Valley.
The proposed project involves the installation of unmanned wireless communication
facility and associated support facilities. The proposed project would not increase the
population or alter existing public facilities; therefore, there would be no increase in
demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities. No
impact would occur.
City of Ojai
36

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
a, b. No new parks or recreational facilities are proposed as part of the project. As discussed
under Item XIII.a(iv), the proposed project would not increase the population. As such,
there would be no increase in the demand for public parks or other recreational facilities
and no new parks or recreational facilities would be constructed as a result of the proposed
project. No impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic 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 on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
City of Ojai
37

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
use (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 alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
a,b. The proposed project involves the installation of an unmanned wireless communication
facility and associated support facilities. During the construction phase of the project
(estimated to be approximately 45 days), the number of vehicle trips on area roads en route
to the project site would increase; however, this increase in vehicle trips would be
temporary as it would only occur during project construction. Operation of the facility
would not generate a substantial increase in vehicle trips to or from the project site, as trips
to the project site would occur only during routine maintenance and repair as necessary,
which would not generate a substantial number of new trips on roadways serving the
project area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. The project site is not located in proximity to an airport, nor would it affect air traffic
patterns. No impact would occur.
d,e. The proposed project would not alter existing roadways or create new ones. Access to the
proposed facility would be via an easement traversing the existing church parking lot to the
proposed facility location. No alterations to the existing project site access would be
required for project implementation. No impact would occur.
f. The proposed project would not generate substantial new trips to the project site. The
project would not impact the site’s existing parking capacity. No impact to parking supply
would occur.
g. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies regarding alternative
transportation. No impact would occur.
City of Ojai
38

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
-- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
a, b, e. The proposed project would be un-manned and thus it would not generate wastewater.
Therefore, it would not generate effluent that exceeds the wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, require the construction of new
wastewater facilities or exceed the capacity of wastewater treatment facilitates. No impact
would occur.
c. As discussed under Item VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not
adversely affect existing storm drain facilities or require the construction of new storm
drain facilities. No impact would occur.
City of Ojai
39

d. The proposed new cell tower and associated support facilities would not generate demand
for water. No impact would occur.
f, g. The proposed cell tower and associated support facilities would not generate solid waste
and thus would not adversely affect the capacity of area landfills. Construction waste
would be minimal, and would be a one-time generation of waste, which could be
accommodated at regional construction waste disposal facilities. Therefore, impacts to area
landfills would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a. The proposed project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal
community or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plants or
animals. Construction of the project would require the removal of three mature trees that
are protected in the City of Ojai. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to protected trees to a less than significant
level.
City of Ojai
40

b. The proposed project would create potentially significant impacts discussed in Section IV,
Biological Resources; and Section XII, Noise, which would be mitigated to a less than
significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures included in these sections.
As such, the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact would not be cumulatively
considerable. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. Operation of the proposed project would not adversely affect human beings. It is expected
that the wireless communication facility would be beneficial to the customers served by
AT&T wireless. As discussed in Section XII, Noise, the proposed project could generate a
potentially significant temporary increase in noise levels during operation of the proposed
diesel fueled back-up generator system. However implementation Mitigation Measures N-
1 and N-2 would reduce impacts associated with temporary operational noise to a less than
significant level. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect human beings and
impacts would be less than significant.
City of Ojai
41

References
Bolt, Barnek and Newman. Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, 1971.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program, Map of Important Farmland in California, 2002
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List-
Site Cleanup (Cortese List), http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm,
Accessed November 25, 2013,
California State Water Resources Control Board, GEOTRACKER,
http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/, Accessed November 25, 2013,
Caltrans, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm, accessed online November
25, 2013
City of Ojai, Final EIR, General Plan Land Use, Housing, Seismic Safety, Noise and Circulation
Elements
City of Ojai Municipal Code, Accessed November 25, 2013
Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Database,
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/bms/index2.html, Accessed November 25, 2013
Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/, Accessed November 25, 2013
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel No. 06111C0578E,
Accessed November 25, 2013
http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/QuickOrderResultView
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines, October 2003
City of Ojai
42

Wireless Facility Negative Declaration Summary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Wireless Facility Negative Declaration Summary

Similar to Wireless Facility Negative Declaration Summary (20)

More from homeworkping3

More from homeworkping3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Wireless Facility Negative Declaration Summary