ECOMM DIGITAL MICROWAVE PROJECT, PHASE III Digital Microwave... · ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase III ii ESA / 211284 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated

February 2012Prepared forSanta Clara CountyCommunications Department

Initial Study/Environmental Assessment andMitigated Negative Declaration

ECOMM DIGITAL MICROWAVE PROJECT, PHASE III

225 Bush StreetSuite 1700San Francisco, CA 94104415.896.5900www.esassoc.com

Los Angeles

Oakland

Orlando

Palm Springs

Petaluma

Portland

Sacramento

San Diego

Santa Cruz

Seattle

Tampa

Woodland Hills

211284

February 2012Prepared forSanta Clara CountyCommunications Department

Initial Study/Environmental Assessment andMitigated Negative Declaration

ECOMM DIGITAL MICROWAVE PROJECT, PHASE III

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase III i ESA / 211284 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase III Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page Background 1 Project Approvals 2 Project Description 3 Environmental Impacts 22 1. Aesthetics 22 2. Agricultural Resources 29 3. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 30 4. Biological Resources 36 5. Cultural Resources 45 6. Geology and Soils 54 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 59 8. Hydrology and Water Quality 72 9. Land Use and Planning 81 10. Noise 83 11. Population and Housing 87 12. Public Services 88 13. Mineral Resources and Recreation 88 14. Transportation / Traffic 90 15. Utilities and Service Systems 94 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 98

Appendices

A. Background Information (Reproduced from 2009 IS/MND and EA) A-1 B. Environmental Review Methodology (Reproduced from 2009 IS/MND and EA) B-1 C. NEPA Environmental Review (Reproduced from 2009 IS/MND and EA) C-1

Table of Contents

Page

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase III ii ESA / 211284 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

List of Figures

1. Regional Site Location 5 2. ECOMM Network Configuration 6 3. Typical ECOMM Equipment Rack Configuration 8 4. Fire Station 29 Site 16 5. Sierra Azule Site 17

List of Tables

1. Category 2 - Sites Requiring Placement of New Antennas at Existing Facilities 9 2. Category 3 – Sites Requiring Placement of New Antennas at Existing Facilities 14 5-1. Records Search Results 47 5-2. Paleontological Potential 51

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase III 1 ESA / 211284 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

ECOMM DIGITAL MICROWAVE PROJECT, PHASE III Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Background1

In 2007 and 2009, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessments were prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of implementing the initial and the second phase of a region-wide digital microwave interoperability communications network, also called the “ECOMM System.” The environmental studies determined that all environmental impacts of implementing the overall ECOMM network itself were less than significant and that the impacts of constructing and operating each of the individual communication sites were either less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Both projects (Phase I and Phase II) have been constructed and are in operation. The first phase of the ECOMM private (i.e., dedicated) microwave network links all 14 of the 9-1-1 Call Centers in Santa Clara County and enables high-speed sharing of dispatch services, records databases, and voice traffic (via interoperable communications, when available) between law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services throughout the County. The second phase project further expanded the ECOMM system by linking to additional emergency communications networks throughout the County, thereby expanding the coverage.

This document extends the environmental review by analyzing potential environmental impacts of an independent third phase of the project, to incorporate ECOMM Phase III expansion sites and communication segments. This document contains both project-specific and programmatic reviews. The reviews address: 1) project-specific analysis of the ECOMM system as a whole; 2) project-specific analysis of four sites for which plans have been developed by project engineers and where project implementation is anticipated shortly after the completion of the environmental review period (referred to as “Proposed Sites” throughout this document); and, 3) programmatic reviews of 11 additional sites that the County has identified as potential future sites for installing or expanding communications equipment when funding to undertake such projects is available (referred to as “Future Sites” throughout this document).

A programmatic review is appropriate for a project that will involve a series of actions that are (1) related geographically, (2) logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions, (3) connected as 1 See Appendix A for more detail about the initial and Phase II projects.

Environmental Impacts


part of a continuing program, and (4) carried out under the same authorizing statute or regulatory authority and have similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways (Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines). Accordingly, this document presents reasonable assumptions (as described later in the Project Description) about the overall types and levels of activities that the County anticipates at each of the “Future Sites” and describes their associated environmental impacts. Further environmental review of these sites may be necessary before these future sites could be constructed and incorporated into the ECOMM system.

As with the prior phase, the Santa Clara County Communications Department is the CEQA Lead Agency. The grant for this phase of the project is provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is being managed by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). Cal EMA is the Lead Agency for NEPA environmental review purposes.2

This document extends the analyses in the 2007 and 2009 environmental review documents, with relevant parts of those prior documents reproduced in Appendices and below and where appropriate to provide context and to make this document as complete as possible without the need to reference the prior environmental documents.

Jurisdictional Involvement Nineteen participating jurisdictions have signed the Santa Clara County Data Communication Network Joint Funding Agreement dated March 5, 2002 and the Second Amended Santa Clara County Data Communication Network Joint Funding Agreement dated September 1, 2004. The following agencies will be directly involved in the approval or implementation of the ECOMM Phase III network expansion project: County of Santa Clara (as Lead Agency), City of San Jose, and City of Los Gatos.

2 Appendix C provides additional information regarding NEPA environmental review.

Project Approvals

Santa Clara County Communications Department, as Lead Agency, will coordinate with Responsible Agencies during preparation of the Initial Study to assure that information relevant to CEQA is obtained and considered. Likewise, the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA have already considered relevant information related to NEPA review and have issued memorandums (dated April 25, 2011 and September 15, 2011) approving work proposed at the Fire Station 29 and Sierra Azul sites, respectively. In addition, the cities of San Jose, and Los Gatos will administer building permits for sites where ground disturbance is expected.

CEQA Environmental Review Santa Clara County Communications Department is the CEQA Lead Agency for the ECOMM system environmental review. Under CEQA, some of the participating jurisdictions in Santa



Clara County may be Responsible Agencies, in that they may need to rely on the findings of this environmental review for any discretionary actions they may need to take with regard to implementing or approving their part of the proposed project. It is assumed that the conditions of approval for each site would be implemented for permitting purposes as required by the appropriate Responsible Agency (e.g., design review by a planning commission or similar body).

This Initial Study will consider all of the elements in the Santa Clara County’s CEQA environmental checklist. In addition, the Initial Study will also include the required NEPA elements, as described in the section below.

Site Evaluation

All of the ECOMM Phase III sites are located at existing fire department sites, government buildings, or within existing communications facilities. Except the few noted in the Project Description, the project sites are not located within or adjacent to residential areas. None are sited specifically in minority or low income areas. As discussed in Section 5 of the Environmental Impacts section, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for information on any local tribes within the local area of sites where ground disturbance is anticipated as part of the proposed project; no information on local Indian tribes was provided by the NAHC. As discussed in the Environmental Impacts section of this IS/EA, all significant or adverse impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels. Further, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the IS/EA during the 20-day public review period. Notice of the availability and intent to adopt the IS/EA would be posted on the website of County of Santa Clara, and Notice of Intents would be mailed to each of the affected jurisdictions and agencies for local posting. Therefore, implementation of the project would be in compliance with Executive Order 12898.

Project Description

Proposed Project Location and Schedule The proposed project would be located within the County of Santa Clara, California. The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay and encompasses 1,312 square miles. Also known as the “Silicon Valley,” the county includes the City of San Jose, which is the County’s government seat and has the distinction of being the largest city in the county, the third largest city in the state and the tenth largest city in the United States (City of San Jose, 2006). The Santa Clara Valley runs the entire length of the county from north to south, ringed by the rolling hills of the Diablo Range on the east, and the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west. Salt marshes and wetlands lie in the northwestern part of the county, adjacent to the waters of San Francisco Bay. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the proposed project.

For project sites for which plans have been developed, the project would be implemented in the spring of 2012 and would be completed within approximately one month. Construction duration

Project Description


at each individual site would be approximately one day at Category 2 sites to three days at Category 3 sites.

Existing ECOMM Network and Proposed Expansion The basic topology of the existing ECOMM network is that of a large “ring” of microwave communications links with a “spur” extension stretching to the southeast to connect to participating jurisdictions in the south part of Santa Clara County. Each of the sites, or nodes, on the basic ring connects to two or more sites and allows communications to all other sites in the ring, whether clockwise or counter-clockwise around the ring. Various other sites in the north County and all of the sites in the southern portion of the County are served by individual transmission links that radiate from the nodes of the basic ring. The basic ring topology provides the network with a redundancy that allows service to continue to all other nodes within the ring, and possibly to all other radiating links as well, in the event that one of the nodes in the basic ring goes offline. Figure 2 illustrates the basic structure of the ECOMM network.3

The ECOMM Phase III project would add 2 new connections to the existing network (consisting of two nodes each), as well as up to 11 individual nodes that would be connected to existing ECOMM sites in the foreseeable future. These connections, both proposed and future, would link additional existing control centers and major communication sites by microwave transmissions and would allow currently isolated jurisdictions to effectively communicate and share resources across jurisdictional boundaries during local and region-wide public safety incidents. ECOMM is independent of commercial wireless and telephone networks, which typically overload and fail during major regional incidents, and could eventually link to other regional interoperable public safety microwave systems being built around the Bay Area.

Most of the communication sites selected for the Phase III project already have existing microwave antennas mounted on existing buildings or towers, and also have their microwave transmitting and receiving equipment located in existing structures. However, the infrastructure at these sites cannot now engage in ECOMM communications. Most of the infrastructure components and advanced interoperability applications needed to do this would be internal to those buildings and support structures, but external microwave dishes would be needed to transmit directional ECOMM digital microwave signals from one node to the next.

Expanding the ECOMM network to the four proposed sites (as well as 11 future sites) requires the installation of similar additional microwave dish antennas (or replacement of similarly sized antennas) and equipment at these sites, as well as at each of the corresponding existing ECOMM nodes to which they would connect. The relative flexibility of the ECOMM network, with respect to the microwave antenna sites, allows the overall system to be considered, approved and developed without being obstructed by the prospect of causing a significant adverse environmental impact due to the location or construction of any particular ECOMM site, since any particular site could potentially be relocated to a nearby site that could avoid any significant impacts.

3 The ECOMM network is described in more detail in Appendix B.

Pacheco PeakCity Hall Annex

Carol Drive (CountyCommunication Center)

Frazier Peak

Rodoni County FireDept Headquarters

Rinconda WaterTreatment Plant

Sierra Azule

CupertinoCity Center

WestsideSheriff’s

Office

SevenSprings County

Fire StationBlack Mountain

Dahl Reservoir

Holiday Lake

Mt. Chual

Redwood Fire Station Redwood Cell

Palo Alto Civic Center

Eagle RockSan Jose Fire Station 29

Palo AltoPublic Works

Facility

San JoseCity Hall

E-COMM Phase III Project. 211284Figure 1

Regional Site LocationSOURCE: GlobeXplorer; Harris Stratex

Existing ECOMM Sites and Segments

Proposed Phase III Sites and Segments

Possible Future Phase III Sites and Segments (communication links unknown)

0 5

Miles

YOLO

SOLANO

ALAMEDA

SANTA CRUZ

EL DORADO

SANMATEO

SAN FRANCISCO

NAPA

SONOMA

MARIN

CONTRACOSTA

STANISLAUS

SANTACLARA

SACRAMENTO

SANJOAQUIN

County FireDept Headquarters (2)

Rinconda WaterTreatment Plant (2)

CupertinoCity Center (2)

Seven SpringsFire Station (3)

Black Mountain (3)

Dahl Reservoir (3)

Mt. Chual (3)

Redwood FireStation (3)

Redwood Cell (2)

WestsideSheriff’sOffice (2)

Sierra Azule (3)

Santa Clara Fire Station 29 (3)

Palo AltoPublic Works

Facility (3)

Fire Station 28

Fire Station 25

Lakeview Court

El Toro

Pacheco Peak

GoodSamaritanHospital

Sunnyvale Corporate Yard

SunnyvalePolice Dept

Woodland

Gilroy Target

Gilroy Reservoir D

San JoseAirport

San Jose Police Dept South Substation

Doyle Road

City Hall Annex

Stickney

Valley Medical Center

Los Gatos Police Department

Carol Drive

Data Center

Frazier Peak

Rodoni

Holiday Lake

Sheriff

Campbell Tower

Morgan Hill Police Department

California Dept of Forestry

Carol Drive(County

CommunicationCenter) (2)

Milpitas Police Station

Mountain ViewPolice Department

Los Altos Police Department

El CaminoHospital

Palo Alto Civic Center

Cadwallader Reservoir

Coyote Peak

Eagle Rock

County AdminSan JoseCommunication Center

San Jose City Hall (2)


Existing ECOMM Network and Proposed Phase III ExpansionsSOURCE: Harris Stratex

Category (2)

Category (3)

Add New Antennas at Existing Facilites

Erect New Towers/Shelters and Install New Antennas at Existing Facilites

The following categories, indicated in parentheses (), signify the level of development proposed at each communication network site

Existing ECOMM Network Segments

Proposed Phase III Sites and Segments

Possible Future Phase III Sites and Segments (communication links unknown)

Project Description


Individual ECOMM Sites All of the individual communication nodes of the ECOMM system would be located at sites that already serve the radio communications of each participating agency; some would be located at current microwave relay sites. Modifications at most of the individual sites would include the installation of one or two microwave dishes mounted on top of an existing building, on an existing lattice or monopole tower, or on a newly constructed lattice or monopole tower, as well as the replacement or addition of electronic equipment and wiring. Some sites would also require the placement of a new small bridge-like structure, or “waveguide bridge” to house the cabling that connects the microwave antennae to the radio transmitter housed in an adjacent equipment shelter as shown in photographs at right.4 Antennas mounted on rooftops or buildings would require internal cabling to connect the antenna to the equipment inside. Free-standing equipment shelters or interior equipment rooms would house the ECOMM’s microwave radios, multiplex equipment, direct current charger, batteries, and pressurization equipment on racks (see Figure 3).

Establishing a reliable microwave transmission network requires that a clear, straight-line path be available between each pair of transmitting and receiving antennas, i.e., the microwave dishes; therefore, the actual location and orientation of these transmitting and receiving dishes must be precisely determined. Any intervening structures and vegetation along a path would interrupt microwave transmission and make that path unusable.

The level of development that would be required to implement the ECOMM network at an individual candidate site falls into one of four categories that were developed and applied in the Phases I and II ECOMM studies to facilitate the environmental analysis by identifying those features that result in potential for environmental impact. These categories, numbered 0 through 3, correlate roughly to “no impact” through “less than significant impact with mitigation”.5 These conventions are being used in this Phase III analysis.

The development required to construct each of the four proposed Phase III sites falls into two categories: Category 2 sites are those where new microwave antennas and associated equipment would be added to existing communication facilities; and Category 3 sites are those where new towers and/or equipment shelters would be constructed, and new microwave antennas installed

4 All other sites would use existing waveguide bridges or existing underground conduit. 5 See Appendix B, which contains the impact categories applied in this analysis.

Carol Drive Site Waveguide Bridge from Tower to Shelter


Typical ECOMM Equipment Rack ConfigurationSOURCE: Harris Stratex

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7' 0"

#A64859AB #2

Battery/Charger Rack

Weight: 363 KgLife: 20 years

160AH/48V Battery #1

LXP 30A Charger #1

Dehydrator #1

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7' 0"

#A64859AB #1

TRuepoint5200 RFU

11 #1

TRuepoint 5000 SPU #1

IMACS 800 #1

DS1 jackfield #1

Zyxel Ethernet Switch #1

Cisco ASA 5510 #1

TRAK GPS #1

Std F & A Panel #1

DSM card plugsinto this shelf

This shelf is theChannel Bank

At some sites thisweatherproof cabinetis mounted outdoorsnear the antenna

Project Description


(at existing communications sites). The proposed or future project at each individual ECOMM site is described below.

Category 2 – Add New Microwave Antennas at Existing Facilities

Category 2 sites would add new microwave dishes on rooftops or existing towers at existing communications facilities. The microwave dishes also would require extending the cabling to carry the signals to the radio units. At some sites, a new exterior waveguide bridge may be necessary to support the cabling. At some sites, minor modifications to the towers may be necessary to mount the microwave dishes. The ancillary microwave radios, multiplex equipment, DC charger, batteries, and pressurization equipment on racks would be installed within the existing building or equipment shelters.

Microwave dish antenna and equipment upgrades and the addition of new microwave dishes are part of normal operations at microwave facilities. Typically, although such actions may require a building permit, they require no discretionary approval and consequently, require no environmental review under CEQA (pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15301) or NEPA.

The seven Category 2 sites are summarized in Table 1. Detailed descriptions of each follow.

TABLE 1 CATEGORY 2 - SITES REQUIRING PLACEMENT OF NEW ANTENNAS AT EXISTING FACILITIES

Site Name Site Address Global

Coordinates Proposed Actions

Proposed Sites

Carol Drive 2700 Carol Drive, Unincorporated Santa Clara County

37:17:15.01N 121:51:57.03W

Place 1 new dish on existing tower; new electronics in existing rack in existing equipment room

San Jose City Hall 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose

37:20:15.91N 121:53:6.37W

Place 1 new dish on existing roof structure; new electronics in existing rack in existing top-floor radio room

Future Sites

Redwood Cell 21450 Madrone Drive, Los Gatos

37:09:27.26N 121:59:2.08W

Place 1 new dish on existing lattice tower; new electronics in new rack in existing equipment room

Cupertino City Center Cupertino 37:19:18.77N 122:01:49.14W

Place 1 new dish on an existing bar railing on the rooftop; new electronics in new rack in existing equipment room

Westside Sheriff’s Office 1601 S DeAnza Boulevard, Cupertino

37:17:44.24N 122:01:59.39W

Up to 2 dishes on building’s rooftop; new electronics t in new rack in existing equipment room

County Fire Department Headquarters

125 Charter Oaks Circle, Los Gatos

37:15:16.4N 121:57:55.4W

New lattice tower on the roof, new panel antenna, new rack inside existing equipment room

Rinconada Water Treatment Plant

400 More Avenue, Los Gatos

37:15:2.75N 121:59:07.26W

New tower on existing roof, new dish, new electronics on new rack inside existing equipment room

SOURCE: County of Santa Clara, 2012

Project Description


Proposed Sites

Carol Drive

The Carol Drive site is located at 2700 Carol Drive in the Santa Clara County Communication Center, in unincorporated San Jose. The site is located on a hill at about 436 feet msl. The site currently contains a 150-foot tall four-legged, self-supported tower with 14 mounted microwave antennas. Three antennas were installed as part of ECOMM Phase I and one as part of ECOMM Phase II. The antennas range from 3 to 6 feet in diameter, with most between 10 and 35 feet above ground surface and facing different directions. Approximately a dozen of smaller whip antennas are also mounted on the existing tower. Site access is from the surface street to the gated, controlled access Communications Center. The access road to the tower is paved.

The proposed project would install an additional 3-foot dish between 10 and 15 feet above ground surface. The antenna path would be directed toward the Sierra Azul site. A new waveguide would be installed and would run from the antenna to the equipment room through existing waveguide ports. A new radio terminal, installed in the existing rack, would connect to the existing DC power source and dehydrator. No ground disturbance would be required at this site.

San Jose City Hall

The San Jose City Hall site is atop the 18-story, 285-foot-tall building located at 200 East Santa Clara Street in San Jose. The building is in a developed area containing a mix of commercial, institutional and residential uses. The San Jose State University campus is approximately one block south of the project site.

The proposed project would implement changes at the rooftop, where several antennas and a weatherproof outdoor unit (ODU or radio unit) already exist, and the radio room, where communications equipment also already exists.

The proposed project would mount a new 3-foot diameter microwave antenna on a pipe mount affixed to the existing horizontal mounting structure. The new antenna would be about 10 feet

San Jose City HallRoof-top pipe framework, shown prior to installation of a microwave antenna done as part of ECOMM Phase II project.

Carol Drive View of the existing lattice tower and antennas.

Project Description


above the roof surface level and the signal would be directed toward the Fire Station 29 site. A new waveguide would run from the new antenna through existing waveguide ports to an existing ECOMM rack in the top-floor radio room. The new equipment would use the existing electrical power source at the site. No ground disturbance would be required at this site.

Future Sites

Redwood Cell

The Redwood Cell site is located at 21450 Madrone Drive in Los Gatos, in the Redwood Estates community (unincorporated Santa Clara County). The site is at an elevation of 1,500 feet msl. It currently contains an existing self-supported 70-foot lattice-type tower (leased by the County from AT&T) and an equipment shelter. The area contains and is surrounded by vegetation and contains gravel and permeable surfaces. A community hall, fire station and a water tank are located in the immediate project area. Site access is from the local surface street.

A future project would install an additional 4-foot microwave antenna near the top of the tower, at approximately 68 feet above ground surface. The path connection for this site has not yet been determined. A new waveguide would be installed and would run from the antenna to the equipment shelter through existing waveguide ports. A new ECOMM rack would be installed in the equipment room. The new equipment would use existing electrical power source at the project site. No ground disturbance would be required at this site.

Cupertino City Center

The Cupertino City Center site is located near the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South DeAnza Boulevard in the City of Cupertino. The site is atop an existing 9-story building, which houses some of the City’s administrative offices. Two existing whip antennas are already mounted on the rooftop of the building.

This area is fully developed and contains a variety of uses, including civic, commercial, hotel, and residential. Several large surface parking lots also exist adjacent to the project site. Existing vegetation in the immediate area is limited to street trees and ornamental landscaping. Cupertino City Center

View of the existing building on the site with two existing radio antennas.

Redwood CellView of the existing building and tower on the site.

Project Description


A future project would install a new microwave antenna on a railing on the building rooftop. The antenna would be up to 4 feet in diameter and would likely point to the Carol Drive site. A new waveguide would be installed and would run from the new antenna to the equipment room inside of the building through existing waveguide ports. A new ECOMM rack would be installed in the equipment room. The new equipment would use existing electrical power source at the project site. No ground disturbance would be required at this site.

Westside Sheriff’s Office

The Westside Sheriff’s Office is located at 1601 South DeAnza Boulevard in the City of Cupertino (along South DeAnza Boulevard, just north of its intersection with Prospect Road). The project site is atop a two-story building surrounded by surface parking areas and ornamental landscaping. The building is located within a fully developed portion of the City and is dominated by commercial and residential uses. Landscaping is limited to street trees and lawns.

A future project would install up to two microwave antennas, each up to 4 feet in diameter on the rooftop of the existing building, using a mounting system to be determined at the time of project design. Consistent with requirements imposed by the building owner, the antennas would be positioned to not be visible from DeAnza Boulevard. A new waveguide would be installed that would run from the new antenna(s) to the equipment room inside of the building through new waveguide ports. A new ECOMM rack would be installed in the equipment room. The new equipment would use existing electrical power at the site. The microwave path connection(s) for this site are not yet determined. No ground disturbance would be required.

County Fire Department Headquarters

The Santa Clara County Fire Department Headquarters site is located at 125 Charter Oaks Circle in the City of Los Gatos. The project site contains an irregularly-shaped two-story office building surrounded by paved parking areas and vegetation. The site is in a fully developed area, and is surrounded by residential, public, and commercial uses, as well as an electric sub-station. Access to the site is provided via Winchester Boulevard.

Westside Sheriff’s OfficeView of the existing building on the site with two existing radio antennas.

County Fire Department Headquarters View of the existing building and equipment on the site.

Project Description


The existing building on the site contains a roof-top monopole approximately 5 feet in height, anchored by three guy wires, with grill and whip antennas affixed to the monopole. A circular satellite antenna is also separately mounted to the rooftop.

A future project would remove the grill antenna from the rooftop and install in its place a small lattice tower anchored by guy wires. A panel antenna, approximately 1.5 feet square, would be affixed to the lattice tower. The height of the installation would be similar to the height of the existing monopole, approximately 25 feet above ground surface. The square panel antenna would likely point to the Good Samaritan Hospital site (an existing ECOMM site). A new waveguide would be installed that would run from the new antenna to the equipment room inside of the building through existing waveguide ports. A new ECOMM rack would be installed in the equipment room. The new equipment would use existing electrical power at the site. No ground disturbance would be required.

Rinconada Water Treatment Facility

The Rinconada Water Treatment Facility site is located at 400 More Avenue in the City of Los Gatos. The site contains a two-story administration building, water treatment basins, parking and circulation areas and patches of landscaping. Two approximately 40-foot-tall lattice-type antennas, each supported by three sets of guy wires, exist on top of the administration building roof. The site is accessed via a controlled-access gate off of Moore Avenue. The building is surrounded by vegetation and medium-density residential uses to the north, west, and south. Vegetated areas and La Rinconada Country Club are located east of the project site.

The proposed project would install a new approximately 30-foot-tall tower on top of the administration building roof. The new tower would be supported by guy wires and would contain a new approximately 3-foot diameter microwave dish (signal direction to be decided). A new ECOMM radio equipment rack would be installed inside of the existing equipment room within the administration building. The two existing towers on the roof would be removed as part of this future project, with whip antennas on those towers to be moved onto the new roof-top tower. A new waveguide would be installed to run through a new access port from the proposed antenna to the ECOMM rack. All proposed equipment would connect to the existing electric power supply. The administration building is an existing structure so no ground disturbance would be required.

Rinconada Water Treatment Facility View of the existing administration building and roof-top antennas.

Project Description


Category 3 – Construct New Towers / Shelters at Existing Sites

Category 3 sites would require the construction of new lattice or monopole towers and, in some cases equipment shelters, in order to mount and operate the microwave dishes. Also required would be the exterior placement of waveguide bridges and cabling. The ancillary microwave radios, multiplex equipment, DC charger, batteries, and pressurization equipment on racks would be installed within new or existing buildings or equipment shelters.

This level of new construction typically would require a building permit and may also require a land use permit. Other permits or approvals may also be required. When adopted, this Initial Study / Environmental Assessment may be used by the permitting agencies to satisfy environmental review for project approval and/or construction. At two of the eight sites, the proposed communication systems have been designed and programmed, whereas systems at six remaining sites will be designed at a future time.

The eight sites with actions that fall into Category 3 are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 CATEGORY 3 – SITES REQUIRING PLACEMENT OF NEW ANTENNAS AT EXISTING FACILITIES

Site Name Site Address Global

Coordinates Proposed Actions

Proposed Sites

Fire Station 29 199 Innovation Drive, San Jose

37:24:4.56N 121:56:1.85W

New monopole with 3 new dishes and 1 new panel antenna; new electronics and rack in new equipment shelter.

Sierra Azule Sierra Azule Court (terminus), Los Gatos

37:13:30.52N 121:55:30.09W

New monopole with 1 new dish; new equipment and rack in new equipment shelter.

Future Sites

Redwood Estates Fire Station

21452 Madrone Drive, Unincorporated Santa Clara County

37:09:26.06N 121:59:3.01W

New monopole with 1 new dish; new equipment and rack in new equipment shelter.

Mt Chual --- 37:07:9.74N 121:50:2.31W

Replace existing tower with a self-supporting tower; new dish; new equipment in existing shelter

Black Mountain --- 37:19:7.89N 122:8:46.92W

Replace one existing tower with a new lattice tower; relocate existing antennas to new tower; new dish new electronics and rack in new equipment shelter

Dahl Water Tank 3891 Page Mill Road, Unincorporated Santa Clara County

37:20:22.89N 122:10:39.7W

New monopole with 1 new dish; new equipment and rack in existing equipment shelter.

Seven Springs County Fire Station

21000 Seven Springs Parkway, Cupertino

37:17:52.63N 122:02:30.60W

Replace existing lattice tower with new monopole; 2 new dishes (relocate existing dishes); new electronics and rack in new shelter

Palo Alto Public Works Facility

3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto

37:26:23.32N 122:06:40.16W

Replace existing tower with a new monopole; new dish; relocate existing dishes to new monopole; new electronics and rack within existing shelter.

SOURCE: County of Santa Clara, 2012

Project Description


Proposed Sites

Fire Station 29

Fire Station 29 is located at 199 Innovation Drive in the City of San Jose (at the intersection of Innovation Drive and Zanker Road). The project site contains a two-story fire station surrounded by paved circulation space and landscaping. Fire Station 29 is located in an area that is fully developed with commercial uses and associated surface parking lots. Vegetation in the general area exists in the form of landscaping and street trees.

The proposed project would install a 100-foot-tall monopole and an equipment shelter 10 feet by 12 feet in size just south of the monopole. Both the monopole and the equipment shelter would be constructed behind the fire station building and would be surrounded by eleven 48-inch-tall bollards installed for security purposes (see Figure 4). The proposed monopole and bollards would be made of galvanized steel. Three sets of whip antennas (each set containing four approximately 10-inch-tall individual antennas) would be installed at 49, 69, and 89 feet above ground level. In addition, a panel antenna would be installed at 84 feet above ground level, and a 3-foot diameter microwave antenna would be installed at 97 feet above ground level. The microwave antenna would link to the San Jose City Hall site. The installation of the new monopole would require the excavation of approximately three feet in diameter and up to approximately 15 feet below ground surface. The construction of the new equipment shelter would require an excavation of an area approximately 10 feet by 12 feet in size and up to one foot in depth to accommodate the concrete foundation. A new waveguide run would be installed from the new antenna and would be connected to the new equipment in the equipment shelter through a new entry port. One tree would be removed to accommodate the proposed project.

Sierra Azule

The Sierra Azul site is located at the terminus of Sierra Azule Court in the City of Los Gatos. The project site is located at an elevation of 864 amsl. The site is under the jurisdiction of the San Jose Water District and contains a water tank approximately 23 feet in height, an equipment shelter, a generator (on top of a concrete pad), and several small outdoor units housing irrigation control and electrical equipment. These structures are surrounded by paved areas and vegetation, including grass, shrubs, and trees. The surrounding area is developed as a low- to medium-density residential neighborhood.

The proposed project would install a 30-foot-tall monopole on the site with an approximately 3-foot microwave antenna installed approximately 30 feet above ground surface. The new microwave antenna would point to the Carol Drive site. A new equipment shelter, approximately 8 feet by 12 feet in size would be constructed adjacent to and just south of the new monopole. A waveguide will be routed from the antenna down the monopole and into the new equipment shelter. Associated equipment will be installed in a 7-foot rack within the new equipment shelter. Electric power to the shelter and radio equipment would be provided via a sub panel within the existing pump house.


Fire Station 29 SiteSOURCE: ESA, 2011; Aviat Networks, 2011

(P) 100’ MONOPOLE

(P) 10’X12’ SHELTER

8’x12’

30’-0” A.G.L.

(P) 30’ MONOPOLE

RAD CEN @ 30’-0” A.G.L.(P) (1) 3’ HP DISH

WATER TANKEL=885.73

HT=22.75’ AGL

TOP OF (E) ANTENNAEL=897.43’ AMSL HT=34.73’

AGL 11.69’ HIGH

TOP OF (E) ANTENNAEL=897.43’ AMSL HT=34.73’AGL 11.69’ HIGHTOP OF (E) ANTENNA

EL=897.43’ AMSL HT=34.73’AGL 11.69’ HIGH

TOP OF (E) ANTENNAEL=897.43’ AMSL HT=34.73’AGL 11.69’ HIGH

PROPOSEDSHELTER

PROPOSEDSHELTER

EQUIPMENTSHED

VAULT GENERATORON CONC. PADGENERATORON CONC. PAD

(P) TRANSFORMER


Sierra Azule SiteSOURCE: ESA, 2011; Aviat Networks, 2011

Project Description


Future Sites

Mount Chual

The Mount Chual site is located in the eastern Santa Cruz Mountains in the Uvas Canyon County Park (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands). The site is located on the top of a hill at an elevation of 3,500 feet above sea level (msl) and currently contains a one-story equipment shelter and an approximately 70-foot-tall lattice-type communications tower with several omni whip antennas mounted at different heights adjacent to the communications building. In addition, two approximately 6-foot diameter antennas are mounted to the sides of the existing structure about 15 feet above ground (at roof-line height). These link to the Carol Drive and Morgan Hill ECOMM system sites.

The project site is largely unpaved and is covered by gravel and patches of vegetation. A propane tank used to power the emergency generator is located within the northern portion of the project site. The site is bordered by a chain-link fence with barbed wire along the top and is accessed via a private road segment of Loma Prieta Road. The site’s entrance is locked and gated and, because the road is unpaved, a four-wheel drive vehicle is required to access the towers. Other similar communications installations are located nearby, each of which consists of clusters of communication towers, antennas, and equipment shelters. The site is otherwise bordered by densely vegetated open space lands.

A future project would remove the existing tower on the project site and replace it with an 80-foot-tall self-supporting tower (monopole) in its place. A new microwave antenna, up to 6 feet in diameter, would be installed on the new tower at approximately 15 feet above ground level. The path connection for this site has not yet been determined. A new waveguide run would be installed from the new antenna and would be connected to the new equipment in the existing microwave radio shelter through a new entry port. The proposed project would require an excavation of approximately 15 feet in depth and 3 feet in radius for the proposed tower. No vegetation would be removed as part of this project.

Mount Chual View of the existing equipment shelter and antennas.

Project Description


Redwood Estates Fire Station

The Redwood Estates Fire Station is located at 21452 Madrone Drive in the unincorporated Redwood Estates community of Santa Clara County. The project site contains two buildings: an apparatus shed and a double-wide manufactured home converted to offices, a day room, and crew quarters. The project site contains paved surfaces and also contains vegetation. The site is accessed via Madrone Drive, off of CA Highway 17. It is surrounded by residential and public uses and dense vegetation. This site is also adjacent to the Redwood Cell site, discussed above.

A future project would construct a new 80-foot-tall monopole tower next to the fire station building. A new 4-foot diameter microwave antenna would be installed at approximately 70 feet above ground surface. The path connection for this site has not yet been determined. In addition a new shelter, approximately 10 feet by 12 feet in size, would be constructed next to the shelter. A new ECOMM radio equipment rack would be installed inside of the new shelter with a new waveguide installed to run from the proposed antenna to the ECOMM rack. All proposed equipment would connect to the existing electric power supply. The proposed project would require an excavation of approximately 15 feet in depth and 3 feet in radius to accommodate the proposed tower. Minor grading, up to 12 inches in depth and 10 feet by 12 feet in area, would be required to accommodate the new shelter. No vegetation would be removed.

Black Mountain

Black Mountain Site is located within the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, in unincorporated Santa Clara County. It is located at an elevation of approximately 2800 feet amsl. The site, a portion of which Santa Clara County leases from the Federal Aviation Administration, contains four communication towers (both lattice-type towers and wooden monopoles) with multiple whip and microwave antennas mounted on each of the towers. Two one-story shelters are located on the project site (a larger one in the middle of the site and a small shelter next to one of the communication towers), each containing communication equipment inside. Waveguides and waveguide supports, which connect existing installation to the equipment in the shelters, are located throughout the site. Additional antennas are mounted on

Redwood Estates Fire StationView of the existing project site.

Black MountainView of the existing communication equipment on the site.

Project Description


rooftops of the equipment shelters. A propane tank is located in the southern portion of the project site. The site surface is covered by rocks and gravel and is void of vegetation. The site is bordered by a chain-link fence (topped with barbed wire) and is accessed via private, unpaved segments of Montebello Road and Black Mountain Trail. The site is surrounded by open space lands (including hiking trails) with no residences nearby.

A future project would remove one of the wood monopole towers and replace it with a new 60-foot-tall lattice tower. A 6-foot diameter microwave antenna would be installed close to the top of the new tower, and would likely be directed toward Carol Drive site. The existing antennas now on the wood monopole would be relocated to the new monopole tower. Approximately 100 cubic feet of soil excavation would be required to accommodate the proposed project and maximum excavation would extend about 15 feet beneath the ground and 3 feet in diameter. Similarly, a new equipment shelter, approximately 12 feet and 10 feet in size, would replace the existing equipment shelter of similar size on the project site. Excavation of approximately 12 inches deep and approximately 10 by 12 feet in area would be required to accommodate the cement slab foundation for the shelter. New radio equipment would be installed in a new ECOMM rack within the new shelter and would be connected to the existing power supply. The path connection for this site has not yet been determined. No vegetation would be removed.

Dahl Water Tank

The Dahl Water Tank site is located at 3891 Page Mill Road between Gates 3 and 4 in unincorporated Santa Clara County and sits at an elevation of approximately 1,884 feet amsl. The site contains a large water tank with four omni whip antennas mounted on top of the water tank roof, and a small equipment shelter a few feet southeast of the water tank. Paved circulation areas as well as patches of vegetation surround the water tank and the equipment shelter. The site is bordered by a chain-link fence (with controlled access to the site), with open space and low-density residential uses beyond. The site is accessed via Page Mill Road.

A future project would construct a new 80-foot-tall monopole within the boundary of the property (designated by a fence). A new microwave antenna, approximately 3 feet in diameter, would be mounted on the monopole at a height that would be determined at a later time. The path connection for this site has not yet been determined. New ECOMM radio equipment would be installed in a new rack within the existing shelter, with a waveguide extended between the new antenna and the rack. No vegetation would be removed as part of this project.

Dahl Water TankView of the water tank, existing roof-top antennae and equipment shelter.

Project Description


Seven Springs County Fire Station

The Seven Springs Fire Station site is located at 21000 Seven Springs Parkway in the City of Cupertino. The site, which is located within a residential neighborhood, contains a one-story fire station surrounded by paved areas and vegetation. Train tracks run along the site’s western edge, with a small neighborhood park and residential uses beyond.

The site contains an existing 40-foot lattice tower, adjacent to the western side of the fire station building. Several omni whip antennas are mounted atop the existing tower.

A future project would replace the existing lattice tower with a 40-foot galvanized steel monopole, that would be

installed at the same location as the existing tower but would be braced to the side of the fire station building. Two new microwave antennas would be mounted on the new monopole at a height of between approximately 35 and 40 feet above ground surface.

These would likely link to the existing Good Samaritan Hospital and Carol Drive sites. The replacement of the lattice tower with a new monopole tower would require excavation of an area approximately 3 feet in diameter to approximately 15 feet below grade. The project would also construct a new equipment shelter adjacent to the new tower (on the paved area), approximately 10 by 12 feet in size. New ECOMM radio equipment would be installed in a new rack within the new shelter, with a waveguide extended between the new antennas and the rack. No vegetation would be removed.

Palo Alto Public Works

The Palo Alto Public Works site is located at 3201 East Bayshore Road in Palo Alto, just east of Highway 101. The site is used as storage yard for the City’s municipal equipment. It contains three large one-story warehouse-type buildings as well as a fueling station. The structures are surrounded by large paved areas used for surface parking and storage. An existing telephone pole and a roof-top antenna tower are also located on the site (the roof-top tower is located on top

Seven Springs County Fire StationView of the existing lattice tower (left) and paved area adjacent to the building (below).

Palo Alto Public WorksView of the existing building and rooftop antenna on the project site.

Project Description


of the northernmost storage building). The Public Works facility is surrounded by a chain-link fence, with wetlands abutting the site along three sides (roughly north, east, and south) and a roadway located along its western border. Access to the site is provided via a controlled gate.

A future project would remove the existing antenna and tower and replace them with a single 100-foot-tall galvanized steel monopole. The location of the monopole would be determined following additional surveys; however, it would likely be adjacent to and just north of the northernmost building, which already contains a radio equipment room. Antennas now on the existing towers would be relocated on the new tower. In addition a new microwave antenna ranging in size between three and six feet, would be installed atop of the new tower at a height that would be determined at a later time. It is likely that at least one of the new microwave towers would face the Police Department site. The installation of the new tower would require excavation approximately 15 feet in depth and 3 feet in diameter. New ECOMM radio equipment would be installed in a new rack within an existing equipment room and a waveguide would be extended between the new antenna and the rack. The towers and equipment would receive power through an existing connection on the site. No vegetation would be removed.


To simplify the readability of the environmental impacts analysis, the discussion for each topic below is organized into five categories, the overall ECOMM system and the four project types (Categories 0, 1, 2, and 3), which are discussed in Appendix B.

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No Impact

1. AESTHETICS—Would the project:

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

b) Substantially damage scenic resources along a designated 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?

e) If subject to ASA, be generally in non-compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval?

f) If within a Design Review Zoning District for purposes of viewshed protection (d, -d1, -d2), conflict with applicable General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance provisions?



Comments

1a) Would the project have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?

ECOMM System:

No Impact. ECOMM is a private6 microwave radio network that provides interoperable communications between law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services throughout Santa Clara County. The publicly visible aspects of the ECOMM system are the microwave antennas and communications equipment that operate at communications sites throughout the County. The proposed Phase III expansion of ECOMM would occur at sites that include existing police or public safety agency facilities, the sides or rooftops of buildings, or existing communications sites on hilltops. There are no aesthetic impacts inherent to the ECOMM system itself; aesthetic impacts would result only from visible change at individual microwave antenna sites.

Category 2 Sites:

Proposed Sites:

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Phase III expansion of ECOMM would add new microwave antennas, up to 4 feet in diameter, to an existing lattice tower at the Carol Drive and on the rooftop of the San Jose City Hall. In addition, various radio equipment components would be installed within the existing radio vaults at each location. Several antennas already exist at each of these locations. As noted in the project description, the proposed dish antenna at the Carol Drive site would be installed between 10 and 15 feet above ground surface, on the existing 150-ft tower, which is located on a hill approximately 236 above mean sea level. The proposed antenna that would be installed at San Jose City Hal (an 18-story, 285-foot-tall building), would be affixed to the existing horizontal mounting structure on the building’s roof.

Although each of the sites is visible both from close proximity and from a distance, the visual impacts of the Category 2 changes are not considered to be significant, since the proposed antennas would be up to 4 feet in diameter or less and would be added to sites with existing antennas on existing towers or mounting structures. Further, the antennas would be grey, a color that reduces visibility from a distance. Finally, equipment would be housed in existing equipment shelters, rooms, or outdoor radio units and would not alter the existing visual character of those sites.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Future Sites:

Less than Significant Impact. As noted in the project description, possible future Phase III expansion of ECOMM would add new microwave antennas to any of the following five future Category 2 sites are under consideration: the Redwood Cell site, the Cupertino City Center site, the County Fire Department Headquarters site, the Sheriff’s Westside Sub-Station site and the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant site. Similar to the sites for which plans have been developed,

6 “Private” meaning there would be no access or use other than by its operators / participating agencies.



these sites are already developed with buildings or sheds, and contain existing communication sites with existing antennas. Although the new antennas would be visible, some from a distance of a block or more, the visual impacts of changes at Category 2 sites would not be considered significant, since the proposed antennas would be 4 feet in diameter or less and would not substantially alter the views in each of the project areas. Similar to antennas currently used throughout the ECOMM system, the new antennas would be grey, a color that would makes them difficult to see from a distance. Equipment would be housed within existing equipment shelters, rooms, or outdoor radio units and would not alter the exiting visual character of those sites or alter public views or vistas in those individual areas. Thus, impact associated with Category 2 sites would be less than significant.

Category 3 Sites:

Proposed Sites:

Less than Significant Impact. At Fire Station 29 and Sierra Azule sites, the project would involve installing new towers and/or new equipment shelters as well as installing microwave antennas on the towers. Equipment would be housed in new or existing equipment shelters or rooms. The proposed antennas would be grey, a color that makes them difficult to see from a distance. Where feasible, vegetation would be used to screen the site from nearby neighbors. It is possible that the City of San Jose and the Town of Los Gatos would require design review of a site to ensure the project would visually compatible with the neighborhood character and surrounding environment to the extent possible.

Fire Station 29. The proposed project would install a 100-foot-tall monopole and an equipment shelter 10 feet by 12 feet in size just south of the monopole. Both the monopole and the equipment shelter would be constructed behind the fire station building, in the site’s northern portion and would be surrounded by 11 48-inch-tall bollards installed for security purposes. The proposed monopole would be made of galvanized steel. Three sets of whip antennas (each set containing four 10-inch-tall individual antennas) would be installed at 49, 69, and 89 feet above ground level. In addition, a panel antenna would be installed at 84 feet above ground level, and a 3-foot diameter microwave antenna would be installed at 97 feet above ground level.

The proposed project would be visible from the surrounding area since the monopole would be taller than most of the structures in the area. However, the change in views would not be adverse, since the project would be similar in visual character to what is already conveyed by the fire station building and other features on the site. The project site is located in an area that is fully developed and contains mainly commercial uses and surface parking lots. Thus, the project would change the existing views in the area but such changes would not be considered significant and adverse. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Sierra Azule. The proposed project would install a 30-foot-tall monopole on the site with an approximately 3-foot microwave antenna installed approximately 30 feet above ground surface. The new microwave antenna would connect to the Carol Drive site. A new equipment shelter, approximately 8 feet by 12 feet in size would be constructed adjacent to and just south of the new



monopole. A waveguide will be routed from the antenna down the monopole and into the new equipment shelter, which would house associated electronic equipment. Electric power to the shelter and radio equipment would be provided via a sub panel within the existing pump house.

Other project components would be housed within the proposed equipment shelter. The site has an existing water tank with two 35-ft existing antennas mounted to the top of the water tank. The site is enclosed by a chain link fence, and surrounded by oak trees and eucalyptus trees. The nearest homes are between approximately 20 feet and 50 feet from the site, and the site is visible from other homes in the neighborhood. However, within the visual context of the site, which includes an existing 35-foot-tall water tank with antennas and surrounded by vegetation, the project would not impart material changes to the appearance of the site. Therefore, the visual impact related to the scenic vista would be less than significant.

Future Sites:

Mount Chual. The proposed project would remove the existing tower on the project site and replace it with an 80-foot-tall self-supporting tower. A new microwave antenna, up to 6 feet in diameter, would be installed approximately 15 feet above ground level on the new tower. A new waveguide run would run from the new antenna and would connect to new equipment in the existing microwave radio shelter using a new entry port. The proposed project would require excavation of approximately 15 feet in depth and 3 feet in diameter for the proposed tower. No vegetation would be removed.

The site is bordered by densely vegetated open space lands. No residences are adjacent to the proposed project site. Other similar communications installations are located on the project site, consisting of communication towers of various sizes, antennas, and equipment shelters. The replacement tower would be installed in the same place as the existing tower. The replacement tower would be slightly taller than the existing tower, but would not materially alter the appearance of the project site. The visual impact related to a scenic vista would, therefore, be less than significant.

Redwood Estates Fire Station. The proposed project would construct a new 80-foot-tall monopole tower. A new 4-foot diameter microwave antenna would be installed at approximately 70 feet above ground surface. In addition a new shelter, approximately 10 feet by 12 feet in size, would be constructed next to the tower, which would house additional equipment. The proposed project would require excavation of approximately 15 feet in depth and 3 feet in diameter for the proposed tower. Minor grading would be required to accommodate the new shelter. No vegetation would be removed as part of this project. Although the proposed tower would be taller than most manmade structures in the area, the screening provided by tall redwood trees that are abundant in the project area would provide visual screening and minimize changes to existing views in the area. Therefore, this would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas.

Black Mountain. The proposed project would remove one of the two existing wood monopole towers at this site, and install in its place a new 60-foot-tall lattice tower. A 6-foot diameter microwave antenna would be installed close to the top of the new tower. In addition, a new



equipment shelter, approximately 12 feet and 10 feet in size, would replace the existing equipment shelter of similar size on the project site. New radio equipment would be installed within the new shelter and would be connected to the existing power supply.

The site is located within the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District in unincorporated Santa Clara County, and is enclosed by a chain linked fence topped with barbed wire. The site is covered by rocks and gravel and is void of vegetation, although this site is surrounded by open space lands (including hiking trails). No residences exist in close proximity. Since the project would replace existing communication infrastructure at the site, the scenic vista under the project would be similar to that of existing conditions. Therefore, the visual impact related to a scenic vista would be less than significant.

Dahl Water Tank. The proposed project would construct at new 80-foot-tall monopole within the boundary of the project site, located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. A new microwave antenna, approximately 3 feet in diameter, would be mounted on the monopole at a height that would be determined at a later time. New ECOMM radio equipment would be installed in a new rack within the existing shelter, with a waveguide extended between the new antenna and the rack. The site, enclosed and secured by a chain-link fence, is bounded by open space and low-density residential uses.

Since the site’s visual quality is currently largely characterized by a large water tank with wire antennas mounted on top, and a small equipment shelter a few feet away, the installation of a new monopole under the project would be consistent with this overall visual context, and would not materially change the appearance of the site. Other project components would be housed within the existing shelter, so would not contribute to any visual change. Furthermore, no vegetation would be removed. Therefore, visual impacts related to any scenic vistas in the area would be less that significant.

Seven Springs County Fire Station. The Seven Springs Fire Station site contains an existing 40-foot lattice tower, which includes several wire antennas, adjacent to the western side of the fire station building. The proposed project would replace the existing lattice tower with a 40-foot galvanized steel monopole, to be positioned at the same location as the existing tower but would braced to the side of the fire station building. Two new microwave antennas would be mounted on the new monopole, between heights of approximately of 35 and 40 feet. The project would also construct a new equipment shelter adjacent to the new tower (on existing paved areas), approximately 10 by 12 feet in size. New ECOMM radio equipment to be housed within the new shelter would not alter the appearance of the site. Furthermore, no vegetation would be removed from the site. The proposed monopole and other project components would not substantially affect views of the site from the surrounding residential neighborhood or neighborhood parkas the replacement tower would be the same height as the existing tower. The new microwave antennas would change existing views, but such change would not be considered substantially adverse. While it may be noticeable to the immediately surrounding residential uses, the new tower and antennas would be generally compatible with the existing character of the fire station. Therefore, visual impacts related to views of the site would be less than significant.



Palo Alto Public Works. The proposed project would remove the existing antenna and tower and replace them with a single 100-foot-tall galvanized steel monopole. Antennas from the existing towers would be relocated to the new tower and a new microwave antenna 3 to 6 feet in diameter would be installed on top of the new tower at a height to be determined at a later time. New ECOMM radio equipment would be installed within the existing equipment room. The towers and equipment would receive power through an existing connection on the site. No vegetation would be removed as part of this project. The site is bounded by a freeway to the southwest, and wetlands and open space to the north, east, and southeast. Residential uses are situated west of the freeway, with fence and tall vegetation providing partial visual separation from the residences and the site. Although the proposed tower would be the tallest feature on the project site, it would be consistent with the overall industrial character of the site (which includes various municipal equipment and machinery). Based on the relatively remote location of the site, the visual screening provided by the adjacent freeway and the surrounding vegetation, and the relatively minor changes to public views and the existing character of the project site, the impacts to views and scenic vistas would be less than significant.

1b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources along a designated scenic highway?

ECOMM System, Category 2 and 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in 1a), above, there are no aesthetic impacts inherent to the ECOMM system itself; any aesthetic impacts would result only from visible change at individual proposed or future microwave antenna sites.

Redwood Cell and Redwood Estates Fire Station are located along CA Highway 17, which is an Eligible State Scenic Highway (Not Officially Designated). However, proposed changes at these sites would not noticeably diminish the quality of views from CA Highway 17. None of the other sites are located along a designated scenic highway and there are no scenic resources at or near the proposed individual sites. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

1c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

ECOMM System and Category 2 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

No Impact. As discussed in 1a), above, any visual impacts would result only from changes at the individual communication sites, not from the ECOMM System.

All Category 2 Sites sites are located at public safety agency facilities, the rooftops of existing buildings, or on hilltop telecommunication facilities. All have communication equipment installed. Some sites require only the placing of a microwave dish antenna onto an existing monopole or lattice tower that already includes other similar-looking antennae, and most of the sites are located in developed areas. Therefore, the project would not result in any degradation to the existing visual quality at any of the sites.



Category 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Less than Significant Impact. Sites that require the installation of a new monopole or lattice tower would occur within the site boundary of an existing communication facility and would be similar in appearance or character to the existing communications tower or to the existing public safety or communications buildings, all of which include existing communications antennas. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the visual character or quality of the sites or its surroundings at these sites: Fire Station 29, Sierra Azule, Mt Chual, Redwood Fire station, Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, Black Mountain, Dahl Water Tank, Seven Springs County Fire Station, and Palo Alto Public Works Facility.

1d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

ECOMM System and All Category 2 and 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

No Impact. No additional site lighting would be installed at the proposed or future sites. In compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, flashing red and white beacon lighting is required on certain new monopoles or towers over 200 feet in height to minimize hazards to air navigation. However, since no proposed towers would be 200 or more feet in height, no impact would occur at any of the ECOMM Phase III sites from additional lighting. The antennas would be painted and would not create glare when in direct sunlight.

1e) If subject to ASA, would the project be generally in non-compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval?


No Impact. No Architecture and Site Approval would be required for any of the proposed sites. As a result, no impact would occur at any of the ECOMM Phase III sites.

1f) If within a Design Review Zoning District for purposes of viewshed protection (d, -d1, -d2), conflict with applicable General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance provisions?


No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not adversely affect any viewshed or visual character of any of the existing sites, most of which already contain similar equipment (i.e., towers and antennas) or are zoned to allow the proposed uses. To the degree feasible, the individual projects would be designed in a way that would minimize their visual disturbance. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance provisions related to viewshed protection. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.





Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation


Impact No Impact

2. AGRICULTURE 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

a) Convert 10 or more acres of farmland classified as prime in the report Soils of Santa Clara County to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use?

c) Conflict with an existing Williamson Act Contract or the County’s Williamson Act Ordinance (Section C13 of County Ordinance Code)?

d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Comments

2a) Would the project convert 10 or more acres of farmland classified as prime in the report Soils of Santa Clara County to non-agricultural use?


No Impact. ECOMM is a system of microwave antennas linked at various locations throughout the County. The proposed Phase III expansion of ECOMM would add microwave antennas on existing poles, towers or building or constructing new towers or equipment shelters. This would not result in conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. Any ground disturbance proposed at a site would be limited to less than 1 acre. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on such agricultural uses.

2b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use?


No Impact. All of the ECOMM sites are located at existing communications sites and none are located on land zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

2c) Would the project Conflict with an existing Williamson Act Contract or the County’s Williamson Act Ordinance (Section C13 of County Ordinance Code)?


No Impact. None of the ECOMM sites are located on land under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts would occur.



2d) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?


No Impact. Neither the ECOMM System nor construction and operation of any of the individual expansion sites would result in employment or population growth that would require construction of additional housing and services, or in the development of surrounding sites or nearby farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on farmland.

_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

3. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

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?

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

Comments

3a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?


Less than Significant. The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area), which is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone



standards, state particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2010) is the applicable Clean Air Plan that has been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues.

The BAAQMD Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the current CAP. If the responses to these three questions can be concluded in the affirmative and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, then BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area.

The first question to be assessed in this methodology is “does the project support the goals of the Air Quality Plan” (currently the 2010 CAP)? The BAAQMD-recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2010 CAP. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality impact questions b) and c), both construction and operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts with mitigation. Therefore, the project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2010 CAP and, therefore, consistent with the 2010 CAP.

The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project include applicable control measures from the CAP?” The 2010 CAP contains 55 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the CAP. The proposed project would install communications equipment throughout Santa Clara County. During its operational phase, it would not generate any vehicle trips, with the exception of trips associated with occasional maintenance of the individual sites. Based on this, the control measures included in the 2010 CAP would not apply to the proposed project. However, the project would not in any way impede the implementation of the 2010 CAP in general.

The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the CAP?” Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path, or proposes excessive parking beyond parking requirements. As a microwave communications installation project, the proposed project would not create any barriers or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities is the area and therefore would not hinder implementation of CAP control measures. The responses to all three of the questions with regard to CAP consistency are affirmative and the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 CAP. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project to applicable air quality plans would be less than significant.



3b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

ECOMM System and All Category 2 and Category 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Operation – No Impact. The proposed project is a system of microwave radios, related electronics, and antennas linked at various locations throughout the County. The proposed sites include existing communications sites at local police or public safety agency facilities, the rooftops of buildings, or existing communications sites on hilltops. Operation of the project would not generate significant pollutant emissions from facilities or from the vehicle trips associated with site maintenance. Thus, there would be little or no change in vehicle emissions over baseline conditions, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in any air quality violation standards.

All Category 2 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Construction - Less than Significant Impact. Trucks would be required to deliver antennas and equipment to the sites and remove old antennas and equipment; however, no major construction activity or use of heavy equipment would occur at these sites, and trucks would only be used once for each Category 2 site (delivery and possibly removal). Therefore, since there would be no significant increase in truck traffic arriving at or leaving the sites, the proposed project’s contribution to air quality would not be significant and no air quality standards would be violated.


Construction - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is currently designated “non-attainment” for the State particulate matter standard of 10 microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) standards (national attainment status is “unclassified” for both PM10 and PM2.5), and the State one-hour and the national eight-hour ozone standards. As part of the effort to reach attainment of these standards, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for several criteria air pollutants associated with operation of projects. Specifically, a project is considered to have a potential to violate air quality standards if it would result in an increase in emissions of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10, reactive organic gases (ROG) or nitrogen oxides (NOx). ROG and NOx are both precursors to ozone formation.

Individual project sites that require the installation of a new monopole or lattice tower would require construction activities to occur. In addition to tailpipe emissions, construction activities typically result in emission of PM, usually in the form of fugitive dust from activities such as demolition or removal of structures, excavation, grading, and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces. In the absence of mitigation, site construction activities may raise dust on a temporary and intermittent basis during the several day construction period. BAAQMD’s approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of dust control measures presented as Mitigation Measure 3-1, which would be a part of the proposed Phase III expansion project, the project’s construction-related dust impacts would be less than significant.



Construction activities would also result in the emission of other criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust and construction-related vehicular activity. While emissions of ROG and NOx from these sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction, these emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. As such, project-related construction emissions would not impede attainment or maintenance of ozone standards in the Bay Area, and the project’s impact related to construction-vehicle emissions would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3-1 (at Category 3 Sites): During all phases of construction at the aforementioned Category 3 sites, the following dust control procedures (Best Management Practices) shall be implemented:

Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.

Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).

Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved streets.

3c) Would the project 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)?


Less than Significant with Mitigation. According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In addition, according to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD, 2011). Alternatively, if a project does not exceed the identified significance thresholds, then the project would not be considered cumulatively considerable and would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts. As discussed for criteria “b” above, the project would result in less than significant construction emissions with mitigation incorporation, and would not result in long-term adverse air quality impacts.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure 3-1.



3d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?


Operation – No Impact. As described in Item 3c), above, operation of the proposed project would mainly include vehicle trips associated with maintenance activities at each site. Vehicles visiting the site would typically include pick-up trucks and utility vehicles. Some jurisdictions have also incorporated vehicles that use clean-burning fuels (i.e., natural gas, biofuels, etc.) into their maintenance fleets. These vehicles, and the relatively small number of them that would visit the sites in a month, would result in no substantial pollutant concentrations being generated that would affect sensitive receptors. The generators that provide back-up electricity at some of the communications site are propane powered and would not operate on a full-time basis. While some sites, including Sierra Azule and the Dahl Water Tank sites, are located in proximity to sensitive receptors (i.e., residential neighborhoods), the proposed projects would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations and would, therefore, not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In summary, operation of the proposed project would result in little or no change in pollutant concentrations over baseline conditions.

ECOMM System and All Category 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Construction – Less than Significant Impact. At sites where a new tower would be built, construction would be expected to involve the use of diesel-powered equipment. Diesel-powered construction equipment generates emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the California Air Resources Board. Such construction activity at each location would last for no more than a few days, and the cumulative duration of all construction for the two proposed Category 3 Sites and up to six future Category 3 sites would be no more than approximately one month. The use of diesel-powered excavation and other diesel construction equipment would be limited to this period, which would be of such short duration as to not result in substantial emissions of diesel particulate matter, either at any individual site or at all sites combined. As a result, even where construction would occur in proximity (i.e., closer than 330 feet) to sensitive receptors such as residences, construction would not result in sufficient emissions of DPM to cause an incremental increase in lifetime cancer risk to nearby receptors that exceeds 10 in one million and/or incremental increase in concentration of PM2.5 of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, both of which are BAAQMD-recommended significance thresholds for TAC emissions. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and construction-generated emissions of TACs would be less than significant.

3e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?


Operation – No Impact. No objectionable odors would be generated by operation of the proposed project.




Construction – Less than Significant Impact. During construction of the project, diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site could create minor odors. Since the construction footprint at each site is small (less than 1 acre) and the quantity of construction equipment used would be relatively few, any odors generated by the diesel equipment are not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and short-lived. Furthermore, the project would not include development of any uses that are associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.

3f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?


Less than Significant. Greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). The proposed project entails replacement of existing radio equipment and microwave antennas, installation of new antennas, and construction of new poles/towers and equipment shelters. Greenhouse gas emissions which would result from the construction and operations of the proposed project are associated with construction activities (emissions from construction equipment), materials used for construction (secondary impacts from cement production, transportation of materials), future vehicle trips to the site, and energy usage (emissions from power plants) from equipment operation.

Although not quantified, GHG emissions associated with project construction would fall far below the BAAQMD’s most stringent GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Therefore, they would be considered less than significant. Moreover, the project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, revised May 2011. Available at www.baaqmd.gov

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov.

_________________________





Impact




Impact No Impact

4. 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats; or would it be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species or likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats? (NEPA)

d) 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.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

e) 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?

f) Fundamentally conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as local tree preservation and removal ordinances, creek protection ordinance, or open space and conservation elements of the local General Plan?

g) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

h) Be located in an officially designated wilderness area or preserve? (NEPA)

Comments

ECOMM Phase III project includes seven Category 2 sites -- two proposed sites and up to five potential future sites where microwave equipment would be installed on existing structures near public facilities. These sites (both proposed and future sites) would have minimal impacts on biological resources, as construction activities would be limited and no ground disturbance would occur.



Two proposed Category 3 sites and up to six future Category 3 sites involve erection of new towers or small amounts of ground disturbance, and were assessed in greater detail. These areas would require construction of new towers, excavation for installation of monopoles, minor grading and pouring of concrete pads for equipment shelters, or renovation of existing structures to house electrical or control boxes. It is anticipated that no more than 15 feet of ground disturbance would occur when necessary to complete construction at these sites.

4a) Would the project 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?


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Proposed ECOMM sites are located in the southern Santa Clara Valley, which has been developed rapidly in the last 40 years from mostly farmland and rangeland to suburban residential and commercial development. However, large tracts of agricultural land and relatively undisturbed open space still exist in the area, and these can support connected wildlife and plant communities. Common natural habitats include annual grassland, oak woodland, chaparral/coastal scrub, and valley foothill riparian corridors.

All proposed ECOMM sites have trees, shrubs, or structures within 200 feet of existing facilities or construction areas that could support nesting birds. Although many bird species do not have any special status designation, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well as California Fish and Game Code, afford protection to almost all nesting native bird species. Breeding birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code 3503 and raptors are protected under Section 3503.5. In addition, Section 3513 of the Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sec. 703 Supp. I, 1989) prohibit the killing, possession, or trading of migratory birds. Finally, Section 3800 of the Code prohibits the taking of non-game birds, that are defined as birds occurring naturally in California that are not game birds or fully protected species. Tree trimming has the potential to result in direct harm to individual birds through “take” of their nests, eggs, or nestlings. ECOMM equipment upgrade and construction activities may also result in indirect impacts to protected breeding birds resulting from construction noise, even when the physical nest is unaffected. Protected birds, especially raptors, could potentially nest on large lattice towers or monopole structures, and replacement of microwave antennae on existing towers could significantly impact nesting birds. Potential impacts to breeding or nesting birds occurring as a result of utility upgrades or construction would be minimized to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1.

Mitigation Measure 4-1 (at all sites): If microwave utility construction or vegetation removal must be performed in the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st), a qualified biologist shall be retained to survey the project area for nesting raptors and other birds and verify the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. If active nests are observed, buffer zones shall be established around trees/shrubs with nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified



biologist through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFG). Buffered zones shall be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned.

Impacts on special-status7 species are not expected at ECOMM Category 2 sites. Access roads to these sites already exist, and heavy equipment would not be necessary to upgrade microwave systems on existing structures. Locations for addition or replacement of microwave equipment have been previously disturbed from construction of existing public facilities, and any habitats near these areas suitable for special status species would not be disturbed by limited project activities occurring at Category 2 sites.


Less than Significant Impact. Proposed Category 3 Sites are located in the cities of San Jose and Los Gatos and are: Fire Station 29 and Sierra Azule. Possible future Category 3 Sites are located in the unincorporated Santa Clara County and cities of Cupertino and Palo Alto and are: Redwood Estates Fire Station, Mt. Chual, Black Mountain, Dahl Water Tank, Seven Springs County Fire Station, and Palo Alto Public Works sites.

Fire Station 29. Located at 199 Innovation Drive in San Jose, approximately 1.2 miles east of I-880 and approximately 1.75 miles north of US-101. Habitats near this site include landscaped/ornamental vegetation and developed areas. Mature ornamental trees are present in landscaped areas of nearby business parks. The project site is within one mile of the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek. Pole location is on a paved area, adjacent to a small landscape tree.

Sierra Azule. Located adjacent to an existing water storage tank at the end of Sierra Azule Court in San Jose, the Sierra Azule site is approximately 2.7 miles east of Highway 17, and approximately 1.7 miles south of US-101. Habitats near this site include annual grassland, oak woodland, and landscaped and developed areas. Mature coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) grow around most of the site. Pole location is on a paved and artificial dirt embankment adjacent to one large water storage tanks.

Redwood Estates Fire Station. Located at 21452 Madrone Drive in unincorporated Santa Clara County, approximately 0.1 mile west of Highway 17 and approximately 4.31 miles south of the City of Los Gatos. Habitats near this site include redwood forest, and developed and landscaped areas. ECOMM project improvements would be located at the existing fire station.

Mt. Chual. Located in a remote, largely undeveloped area within the Santa Cruz Mountains, approximately 8.6 miles south of Highway 85 and approximately 10 miles west of the City of Morgan Hill. Habitats near this site include oak woodland, chaparral/coastal scrub, and annual grassland. ECOMM project improvements would be located at an existing power, water, or communications facility.

7 The term “special-status” species includes those species that are listed and receive specific protection defined in

federal or state endangered species legislation, as well as species not formally listed as Threatened or Endangered, but designated as “Rare” or “Sensitive” on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations, or local agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts. A principle source for this designation is the California “Special Animals List” (CDFG, 2009).



Black Mountain. Located in a largely undeveloped area in the Santa Cruz Mountains, approximately 3.1 miles southwest of US-101 and 1.4 miles north of Highway 35. Habitats near this site include oak woodland and savannah, annual grassland, riparian woodland, and chaparral/coastal scrub. ECOMM project improvements would be located at an existing power, water, or communications facility.

Dahl Water Tank. Located in a largely undeveloped area in the Santa Cruz Mountains east of the Los Altos Hills, approximately 1.7 miles northeast of Highway 35 and 2.8 miles southwest of I-280. Habitats near this site include oak woodland, annual grassland, and chaparral/coastal scrub. ECOMM project improvements would be located at an existing power, water, or communications facility.

Seven Springs County Fire Station. Located at 21000 Seven Springs Parkway, within the City of Cupertino and less than 0.5 mile west of Highway 85. Habitats near this site include landscaped and developed areas. ECOMM project improvements would be located at the existing fire station.

Palo Alto Public Works. Located at 3201 East Bayshore Road within the City of Palo Alto, directly west of US-101 and approximately 4 miles south of the Dumbarton Bridge. Habitats near this site include landscaped and developed areas and northern coastal salt marsh, a designated sensitive natural community by the California Department of Fish and Game. ECOMM project improvements would be within paved and developed areas of the existing public works facility.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents 91 special-status species within the Palo Alto, Mindego Hill, Los Gatos, Santa Teresa Hills, Loma Prieta, and Milpitas U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles that includes the Category 3 Sites (CDFG, 2012). Habitats at the Category 3 Sites were assessed for their potential to support special-status species using the CNDDB (CDFG, 2012), the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered and threatened species database (USFWS, 2012), and the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPS, 2012).

The Redwood Estates Fire Department, San Jose Fire Station 29, Seven Springs Fire Department, and Palo Alto Public Works project sites described above are not anticipated to impact special-status species, as project construction will occur in completely disturbed areas not capable of providing species habitat.

Open space areas in close proximity to the Sierra Azul project site are capable of supporting special-status wildlife species, including California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Furthermore, steeply-sloped annual grasslands in conjunction with small wetland areas directly west of the project area are capable of supporting California tiger salamanders, and the species has been recorded 1 mile east of the project (extirpated occurrence) and 2.4 miles east of the project (extant, or existing, occurrence). However, any project impacts will be limited to disturbed areas adjacent to the existing water tank, and more natural habitats capable of supporting these species will not be affected by the project.



The Dahl Water Tank, Black Mountain, and Mount Chual possible project sites are all located in large areas of open space and extant natural habitat. These areas are known to support a variety of plant species designated as special-status by CNPS, and CNDDB records of several species are present directly surrounding all three sites. At the Dahl Water Tank and Black Mountain, these include Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum), white-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida), arcuate bush-mallow (Malcothamnus arcuatus), woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens), and Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa). At Mount Chual, local special-status plant occurrences include arcuate bush-mallow, Santa Clara mountains beard tongue (Penstemon rattanii var. kleei), Santa Clara mountains pussypaws (Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae), Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita stroblina), Santa Clara red ribbons, smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata), and woodland woolythreads. Additionally, while both the Dahl Water Tank and Black Mountain project sites are within a larger occurrence record for the federal and state endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), both sites are south of the species’ recorded range, and no habitat is present to support San Francisco garter snakes (USFWS, 2006). Sites for monopoles or concrete pads at the Dahl Water Tank and Black Mountain locations are largely devoid of native vegetation and were previously disturbed or graded for construction of other water or communications facilities; no impacts on special-status plants are anticipated at these sites, as no habitat for any such species is present. The Mount Chual location, however, has sparse vegetation present within the project site, and may have limited potential to support special-status plant species. Excavation or ground disturbance for ECOMM facility construction could directly impact special-status plant species if they are present within the project site. Mitigation Measure 4-2 would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure 4-2: Prior to the beginning of project construction, a rare plant survey shall be conducted by a qualified botanist within the Chual Mountain project site to identify any populations of special-status plant species. All surveys and survey reporting should be conducted according the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS, 2001). If special-status plants species are found, direct impacts to these plants shall be avoided when possible. If special-status plants cannot be avoided by proposed project activities, the project proponent should compensate for the loss of rare plants through the following steps:

A qualified ecologist should develop and implement a restoration and mitigation plan according to CDFG guidelines and in coordination with CDFG and USFWS. At a minimum, the plan should include collection of reproductive structures from affected plants, a full description of microhabitat conditions necessary for each affected species, seed germination requirements, restoration techniques for temporarily disturbed occurrences, assessments of potential transplant and enhancement sites, success and performance criteria, and monitoring programs, as well as measures to ensure long-term sustainability.

Land that supports known populations of affected special-status plants shall be identified, enhanced, and protected within the watershed or acquired outside of the watershed at a minimum ratio of 1:1 and protected in perpetuity with conservation easements.



4b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


Less than Significant Impact. Wetland areas are the only natural community potentially affected by project activities, and are addressed in 4c).

4c) Would the project 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.) or tributary to an already impaired water body, as defined by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?


Less than Significant Impact. Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the United States,” which are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) as rivers, streams, mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters. These waters fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively, and CDFG jurisdiction under Sections 1600 through 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Riparian corridors associated with these streams are also protected under Sections 1600 through 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Stormwater drainage from all project sites has to potential to flow into jurisdictional waterways and eventually into San Francisco Bay. However, none of the project sites are directly adjacent to a waterway, and BMPs described in Section 8, Hydrology, would prevent any runoff from significantly impacting jurisdictional waters.

4d) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on oak woodland habitat as defined by Oak Woodlands Conservation Law (conversion/loss of oak woodlands) – Public Resource Code 21083.4?


No Impact. The Oak Woodlands Conservation Law states that significant impacts on oak woodland habitats (woodlands composed of trees in the genus Quercus with greater than 10% canopy cover) must be mitigated. Several mitigation measures are described in the law, including

Purchasing conservation easements

Replanting and maintaining compensatory oak trees

Contributing funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, a fund managed by CDFG that awards grants to restore oak woodland habitat, or



Implement other mitigation measures developed by the county.

Removal of oak trees is not anticipated during utility upgrades or construction activity for any site categories. Impacts to any oak trees that require minor trimming would be mitigated in local or county tree protection ordinances, addressed in 4g) below.

4e) Would the project 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?


Less than Significant Impact. Extensive open habitat areas exist in Santa Clara County, and many of these undeveloped areas are well-suited to support connected wildlife populations. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Area is located along the pacific flyway, a significant migratory route for shorebirds and waterfowl. Upgrades to microwave equipment on existing structures would not significantly increase structure size or width, and would not significantly impact migratory bird species. Limited construction activities for ECOMM upgrades at Category 2 sites would not impact habitats for any terrestrial or aquatic migratory wildlife.


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Research on migrating passerines and shorebirds shows they are often attracted to utility poles, radio towers, large buildings, and wind turbines, and collisions with these structures can prove fatal. Collisions are more likely to occur at night, during storm events, or along known migration routes. Lights on these structures can confuse migrating birds and increase chances of collision. Several long-term studies have documented thousands of bird fatalities on large tower structures, but data for shorter tower structures is typically not as thorough. One study collected 73 birds killed by collisions with a 100-foot tall fire tower, and songbird collisions with small towers cannot be completely discounted until more research is conducted (Manville, 2005). Pole or tower structures proposed for Category 3 sites would not exceed 100 feet tall, and most migrating birds would not encounter them. USFWS recommends structures be less than 200 feet tall to mitigate serious bird collision risks, which is significantly larger than proposed ECOMM monopole heights (USFWS, 2000). While the height of these monopoles is unlikely to adversely affect birds, any guy wires proposed as part of the County Fire Department Headquarters and Rinconada Water Treatment Facility sites’ roof-top tower designs could create significant bird strike impacts. These potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by Mitigation Measure 4-3.

Mitigation Measure 4-3 (any site that would require guy wires): For any project sites that may require guy wires, daytime visual markers, such as brightly colored plastic sheaths, shall be installed on the guy wires used to support the 20-foot roof-top tower, to prevent daytime bird or raptor collisions.

Impacts to avian nursery sites are addressed in 4a), above.



4f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


No Impact. Many ECOMM sites are within the planning area of the Draft Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (SCVHCP) (Santa Clara County, 2009). The plan seeks to protect, restore, and enhance habitats in the Santa Clara Valley and streamline the permitting process for projects in the area. A second Administrative Draft was recently published by Santa Clara County, but the plan is not yet completed or fully implemented. Proposed project activities would not conflict with any provisions of the SCVHCP.

4g) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources: i) Tree Preservation Ordinance [Section C16]; ii) Wetland Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 25-30]; iii)Riparian Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 31-41]?:


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Nearly all ECOMM sites are located within at least 200 feet of mature vegetation. Many of the cities where these sites are located have local tree ordinances that require tree removal permits for removal or significant damage to designated protected trees. Utility upgrades and construction involved in most Category 2 and 3 sites would not require removal of any trees; however, removal of a small landscape tree would be required to accommodate the installation of the new monopole and equipment shelter at Fire Station 29. Requirements for a tree removal permit in the City of San Jose Municipal Code state that the tree must measure at least 56 inches in diameter at 24 inches above ground surface. The tree at Fire Station 29 does not meet this criterion, and no permit will be required for its removal. Minor tree trimming may occur for installation and maintenance purposes, but trimming is not anticipated to require tree removal permitting.

In the event that the project design is altered and requires the removal or substantial modification of trees the project applicant would abide by local tree ordinances. Impacts from tree modification or removal would be mitigated to less-than significant levels by Mitigation Measure 4-4.

Mitigation Measure 4-4 (at all sites): Pursuant to the Santa Clara County Code, Division C16-Tree Preservation and Removal (County of Santa Clara, 1998), the County requires a permit for any tree, regardless of size, within road rights-of-way and easements of the County, whether within or without the unincorporated territory of the County. One criterion the County uses to determine permit approval is whether the tree interferes with vital public utilities or if it will be replaced by approved plantings.

Therefore, any person desiring to remove any tree under an Administrative Permit shall file an application with the County Planning Office not less than 10 days prior to the date of such planned removal. Removal of any tree, regardless of size, located within a County



road right-of-way shall require an Encroachment Permit from the Department of Roads & Airports not less than 60 days prior to planned removal. The following information shall be included in applications for tree removal:

A brief statement of the reasons for removal of the tree.

A photograph of the tree(s) proposed for removal.

A tree survey (map) with the accurate location, number, species, size (diameter measured four and one-half feet above ground, approximate height, and approximate canopy diameter), general health, and approximate age, if known.

Location of property lines, names of the streets fronting the property and edge of any street right-of-way.

A replanting and/or revegetation plan for all trees to be removed. Replacement trees shall be of a like kind and species of tree removed, if native and feasible, or of a kind and species to be determined by the Planning Department. Replacement tree planting shall utilize at least five (5) gallon size stock.

Additionally, depending on the location of the removed tree, local tree ordinances may apply to removal or replacement of protected significant trees. Removal of any trees shall require a tree removal permit from Santa Clara County as well as tree removal permits from applicable city planning agencies.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-4, impacts resulting from tree trimming and tree removal would be reduced to less than significant.

The project would not conflict with any provisions in Wetland Habitat or Riparian Habitat conservation sections of the Santa Clara County General Plan. Any indirect impacts on riparian or wetland areas would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with BMPs described in Section 8, Hydrology.

4h) Be located in an officially designated wilderness area or preserve? (NEPA)


No Impact. No impacts would occur system-wide or at any of the Category 2 sites that would have the potential to adversely impact an officially designated wilderness area or preserve. Furthermore, none of the individual Category 3 sites, which would involve ground disturbance, are located within an officially designated wilderness area or preserve.

References

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2012, California Natural Diversity Database query for USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles of Palo Alto, Mindego Hill, Los Gatos, Santa Teresa Hills, Loma Prieta, and Milpitas, Commercial Version, Accessed February, 2012.



CDFG. California Natural Diversity Database, 2009, Special Animals (901 Taxa), Accessed December 16, 2009, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf.

CNPS, Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Version 7-08b (04/02/08), available online at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi, accessed February 2012.

County of Santa Clara, 1998. County Code, Division C16 Tree Preservation and Removal.

Manville, 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communications towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation. USDA Forest Service General Tech Report PSW-GTR-191.

Santa Clara County, 2009. Administrative Draft Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. Accessed January 2010. Available online at: http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/www/site/alias__default/documents_draft_hcp_chapters/292/draft_hcp_chapters.aspx

USFWS, Listed Species Letter for USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles of Palo Alto, Mindego Hill, Los Gatos, Santa Teresa Hills, Loma Prieta, and Milpitas, Accessed February 2012.

USFWS, San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Field Office, September 2006.

USFWS, Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers. From directors Jaime, Rappaport, and Clark, 2000.

_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA §15064.5, or affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places? (CEQA and NEPA)

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

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?

e) Affect any Native American religious sites? (NEPA)

f) If within New Almaden Historic area, conflict with General Plan policies of this designated special policy area?



Comments

5a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA §15064.5, or affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places? (CEQA and NEPA)

A significant impact would occur if the project caused a substantial adverse change to a historical resource, herein referring to historic-period architectural resources of the built environment, including buildings, structures, and objects as well as archaeological resources have been determined to be historical resources as defined in CEQA §15064.5. A substantial adverse change includes the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a resource.


No Impact. Because no ground excavations would occur due to the ECOMM System and due to construction of Category 2 Sites (new antennas would be mounted on existing towers), there would be no impact to historical resources, including archaeological resources.


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. At all Category 3 Sites, new towers would be installed, which would require excavation of approximately three feet in diameter and up to approximately 15 feet beneath ground surface. In addition, minor ground excavations of approximately 10 feet in diameter and 1 to 2 feet in depth would be required to pour the concrete foundations for equipment shelters and to bury electric/radio cables. In order to assess the cultural resources potential for the eight project sites, a records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on February 7 and 9, 2012 (File No. 11-0845 and 11-0857). Records were accessed by reviewing the Milpitas, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Mountain View, Loma Prieta, and Mindego Hill, California 7.5-minute quadrangle base maps. Additional research was conducted using the files and literature at ESA. The records search included a ¼-mile radius for architectural resources and a ½-mile radius for archaeological resources around each of the eight project sites in order to (1) determine whether known cultural resources had been recorded within or in the vicinity of the project sites; (2) assess the likelihood of unrecorded cultural resources based on historical references and the distribution of environmental settings of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. Included in the review was the Historic Properties Directory Listing (August 2011), which includes listings of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the most recent listings of the California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest.

The results indicate that no architectural resources (buildings, structures, or objects) have been recorded in the eight project sites or within a ¼-mile radius.



The results indicate that no archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the eight project sites. Table 5-1 outlines additional results of the records search. The records search revealed that three of the eight project sites had been subject to previous survey. No archaeological resources were recorded as a result of any of the three previous surveys.

TABLE 5-1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS

Project Site Name Previously Surveyed

Resources within Project Area

Resources within a ½ mile radius Current Site Conditions

San Jose Fire Department 29

Yes (1977, 1980, 1982)

No Yes – Five prehistoric sites, nearest 0.4 miles west

Developed (pavement and landscaping)

Sierra Azule Yes (1976) No No Developed (existing water tank and landscaping)

Seven Springs Fire Department

No No No Developed (pavement and landscaping)

Palo Alto Public Works No No Yes – One prehistoric site approximately 0.5 miles west

Developed (pavement)

Redwood Fire Department

No No No Developed (pavement and landscaping)

Mount Chual Yes (2005) No No Developed (existing towers)

Black Mountain No No No Developed (existing towers)

Dahl Water Tank No No No Developed (existing water tank) SOURCE: NWIC, 2011

A review of aerial imagery (www.historicaerials.com) and photographs for the eight project sites indicates that each location has been subject to previous development in one form or another. Four of the project sites, including Sierra Azule, Mount Chual, Black Mountain, and the Dahl Water Tank, have been subject to substantial grading in the past in connection with the construction of towers and water tanks. The remaining four project sites, including San Jose Fire Department 29, Seven Springs Fire Department, Palo Alto Public Works, Redwood Fire Department, have been previously developed with pavement and landscaping. Conditions across each of the eight project sites are either substantially disturbed due to past grading and construction or are currently developed with pavement and landscaping which obscure the site surfaces in their entirety.

Given the current condition of each of the eight sites, a pedestrian surface survey was not conducted. Survey would be of limited value in the identification of surface manifestations of archaeological resources due to the highly disturbed and/or developed nature of the project sites. Furthermore, with the exception of San Jose Fire Department 29, the project sites are located in geologic formations (see Table 5-2 below) that have a low potential for encountering archaeological resources buried by natural alluvial processes.



San Jose Fire Department 29 is located in a Holocene alluvial deposit; a geological formation that has a high potential to contain deeply-buried archaeological sites (Meyer and Rosenthal, 2007). For example, the five previously identified archaeological sites located within a ½-mile radius of San Jose Fire Department 29 were all uncovered at least 2 feet below the ground surface with no surface manifestation. While the potential for uncovering archaeological materials is minimized due to the limited ground disturbing activity proposed for the project, there nonetheless remains the potential that buried archaeological materials could be uncovered by implementation of the proposed project at the San Jose Fire Department 29 location. Construction monitoring during ground-disturbing activity would insure that a qualified archaeologist is present to identify any potentially-significant archaeological materials and evaluate the resource using the criteria set forth by the California Register of Historical Resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-1 would reduce the potential impact to archaeological resources at San Jose Fire Department 29 to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 5-1: Archaeological Monitoring at San Jose Fire Department 29. The County of Santa Clara Communications Department shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant that has expertise in California prehistory to monitor ground-disturbing activity at San Jose Fire Department 29. If archaeological materials are encountered, all soil disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the resource is evaluated. The archaeological monitor shall immediately notify the County of the encountered archaeological resource. If the resource is prehistoric, a Native American representative shall also be contacted to help assess the find. The monitor (and Native American representative) shall, after making a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological resource, present the findings of this assessment to the County. If the resource is determined to be significant and cannot be avoided, additional data recovery effort may be necessary.

Based on the results of the records search and the current condition of the remaining seven project sites, there exists a low potential for project-related activities to encounter archaeological resources. While unlikely, there nonetheless remains the possibility that buried archaeological resources could be encountered during project construction at the Sierra Azule, Seven Springs Fire Department, Palo Alto Public Works, Redwood Fire Department, Mount Chual, Black Mountain, and Dahl Water Tank project sites. Inadvertent damage to significant buried archaeological resources during construction would be a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-2 would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 5-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100 feet of the find halt until a qualified archaeologist and can assess the significance of the find. A Native American representative shall be contacted if the find is prehistoric. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially



significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 and 5-2 would reduce impacts associated with archaeological resources (pursuant to CEQA §15064.5) to less than significant.

5b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA §15064.5?

If an archaeological site does not meet the CEQA Guidelines criteria for a historical resource, then the site may meet the threshold of PRC §21083 regarding unique archaeological resources. A unique archaeological resource is “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person [PRC Section 21083.2 (g)].”


No Impact. Because no ground excavations would occur at ECOMM System and Category 2 Sites (new antennas would be mounted on existing towers), there would be no impact to archaeological resources.


No known archaeological resources are located in the eight project sites. However, as noted above, San Jose Fire Department 29 is located in a Holocene alluvial deposit, which has a high potential to contain deeply-buried archaeological resources. Additionally, while the remaining seven project sites have a low potential to contain archaeological materials the possibility cannot be entirely discounted. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 and 5-2 above would also reduce impacts associated with archaeological resources at any of the sites to a less-than-significant level.

5c) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Paleontological resources include the remains of microscopic, invertebrate, and vertebrate organisms (e.g., bones, teeth, shells, leaves)—including evidence of their imprints (e.g., footprints or tracks recorded in mud)—from an ancient time period. In many cases, paleontological



resources represent a limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. The significance or uniqueness of a paleontological resource cannot be determined until assessed by a qualified paleontologist, though any vertebrate fossil remain that is in-situ, identifiable, and relatively intact is likely to qualify as significant. Impacts to paleontological resources occur when subsurface ground excavations, usually associated with construction activities, damages or destroys fossil remains that are present in the soil or rock.


No Impact. Because no ground excavations would occur at ECOMM System and Category 2 Sites (new antennas would be mounted on existing towers), there would be no impact to paleontological resources. Further, because the sites are developed, there are no unique geological features present.


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. There would be no impact to unique geological features at any of the Category 3 sites because they are all paved, landscaped, built upon, or otherwise disturbed sites that do not contain any unique geological features. However, all Category 3 sites would involve some degree of ground excavation associated with installation of radio communications facilities and thus could potentially damage or destroy paleontological resources, if present. At all Category 3 Sites, new towers would be installed, which would require excavation of approximately three feet in diameter and up to approximately 15 feet beneath ground surface. In addition, minor ground excavations of about 1 to 2 feet in depth would be required to pour the concrete foundations for equipment shelters and to bury electric/radio cables. While ground excavations associated with the proposed project are relatively minor in magnitude, it is nevertheless a possibility that previously unknown or unrecorded fossils could be unearthed. If not properly identified and preserved, the fossils could be destroyed or damaged, resulting in a significant impact. Because fossils are a subsurface resource, and because none of the sites contained exposed rock outcroppings or stream cuts, no surface survey for paleontological resources was conducted or considered necessary.

As largely buried resources, the exact location or presence of fossils within undisturbed geologic units cannot be determined, but the relative likelihood of encountering fossils can be estimated based on the paleontological potential of the rock unit. The paleontological sensitivity of each Category 3 Site was determined based on examination of regional geologic maps and SVP (1995) criteria for determining the paleontological potential of rock units. In the Bay Area, rock units with high paleontological potential include Pleistocene- and Tertiary-age sedimentary rock units, whereas Holocene-age units and artificial fills are considered too young to contain significant or unique paleontological resources. Table 5-2 presents the paleontological potential of each of the Category 3 sites. Based on the underlying geologic unit, the project sites generally have a low paleontological potential, except for the Sierra Azule and Seven Springs Fire Department sites, which are both underlain by older sedimentary rocks that have been known to yield vertebrate fossils elsewhere in the Bay Area.



TABLE 5-2 PALEONTOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

Project Area Name Current Conditions Underlying Geologic Unit

Paleontological Potential

San Jose Fire Department 29

Paved, landscaped, built upon Holocene alluvial fan deposits, fine-grained1

Low

Sierra Azule Disturbed, landscaped, built upon (existing water tank)

Miocene Monterey shale2 High

Seven Springs Fire Department

Paved, landscaped, built upon Pleistocene alluvial fan1 High

Palo Alto Public Works Paved, built upon Artificial fill over bay mud1 Low

Redwood Fire Department

Paved, landscaped, built upon Quaternary landslide deposits2 Low

Mount Chual Disturbed, built upon (existing towers)

Cretaceous sandstone and shale2 Low

Black Mountain Disturbed, built upon (existing towers)

Franciscan Complex, sandstone and shale3

Low

Dahl Water Tank Disturbed, built upon (existing water tank)

Franciscan Complex, sandstone and shale3

Low

SOURCE: (1) USGS, 2006, (2) USGS, 1998, (3) USGS, 1997

For the Sierra Azule and Seven Springs Fire Department sites, subsurface excavations associated with the new radio towers, while minor in magnitude, nevertheless have the potential to uncover paleontological resources. Because the significance or uniqueness of a fossil discovery is unknown until examined by a qualified professional paleontologist, all fossils discovered during the course of ground disturbances should be treated as potentially significant (Scott and Springer, 2003). To this effect, Mitigation Measure 5-3 would minimize the potential impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring potential fossil finds are assessed by a qualified professional and treated and salvaged, if appropriate.

Mitigation Measure 5-3: If potential fossils are discovered during construction, all earthwork or other types of ground-disturbance within 100 feet of the find shall stop immediately. ECOMM and/or its consultant shall immediately notify the responsible public agency of the potential fossil find and shall contract with a qualified professional paleontologist to assess the nature and importance of the find. If the fossil is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist, in consultation with the ECOMM and the responsible public agency, shall develop and implement an excavation and salvage plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (SVP 1995; SVP, 1996).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce impacts associated with paleontological resources at any of the sites to less than significant.



5d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?


No Impact. Because no ground excavations would occur at ECOMM System and Category 2 Sites (new antennas would be mounted on existing towers), there would be no impact to human remains.


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. There is no indication that any project site has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. Therefore, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. However, in the event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which would be a significant impact. However, this impact would be minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-4.

Mitigation Measure 5-4: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the project proponent shall immediately halt work within 100 feet of the find, contact the Santa Clara County coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project proponent shall contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-3 would reduce impacts associated with human remains at any of the sites to less than significant.

5e) Would the project affect any Native American religious sites?


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Ethnographic literature indicates that the project is located in the Ohlone tribal territory (Levy, 1978:485–495). The Ohlone people were collectively referred to by ethnographers as Costanoan, but were actually distinct sociopolitical groups that spoke at least eight languages of the same Penutian language group. The Ohlone occupied a large territory from San Francisco Bay in the north to the Big Sur and Salinas Rivers in the south. The primary sociopolitical unit was the tribelet, or village community, which was overseen by one or more chiefs.



Economically, the Ohlone engaged in hunting and gathering. Their territory encompassed both coastal and open valley environments that contained a wide variety of resources, including grass seeds, acorns, bulbs and tubers, bear, deer, elk, antelope, a variety of bird species, and rabbit and other small mammals. The Ohlone acknowledged private ownership of goods and songs, and village ownership of rights to land and/or natural resources. They also appear to have aggressively protected their village territories, requiring monetary payment for access rights in the form of clamshell beads, and even shooting trespassers if caught. After European contact, Ohlone society was severely disrupted by missionization, disease, and displacement.

In order to determine whether any of the eight project sites are located in an area of traditional significance a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission and the several Ohlone organizations / individuals who may have knowledge of traditional cultural places in or in the vicinity of the project sites. No responses have yet been received as of this writing however, the project proponent will be immediately informed if any responses are received.

Additionally implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 would reduce impacts associated with Native American religious sites to less than significant

5f) If within New Almaden Historic area, conflict with General Plan policies of this designated special policy area?


No Impact. None of the eight project sites are within the New Almaden Historic area. Therefore, there the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan policies of this designated special policy area.

References

Levy, R.(1978) Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 485–495. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Meyer, Jack, and Jeffrey Rosenthal, Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Prepared for Caltrans District 4, 2007.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources: standard guidelines, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, Vol. 163, p. 22-27. 1995.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). Conditions of Receivership for Paleontologic Salvage Collections, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, Vol. 166, p. 31-323. February 1996.

Scott and Springer, 2004, CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California, AEP Spring 2004 CEQA Workshop Series, The Environmental Monitor, Fall 2004.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Open-File Report 2006-1037, 2006.



U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, California: A Digital Database, by Wentworth, C.M., Blake, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J. Jr, and Graymer, R.W., USGS Open File Report 98-795, 1998.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), General Distribution Of Geologic Materials In The San Francisco Bay Region, California: A Digital Map Database, compiled by Wentworth, C.M., USGS Open-File Report 97-744, 1997.

_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

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

c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the report, Soils of Santa Clara County, 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 waste water?

f) Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site?

g) Cause substantial change in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?

h) Involve significant change in surface features (wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion? (NEPA)



Discussion

The County of Santa Clara lies within the Coast Range geomorphic region of California which lies between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Valley and stretches from the Oregon border to the Santa Ynez River near Santa Barbara.8 Discontinuous northwest-trending mountain ranges, ridges, and intervening valleys characterize this province. Much of the Coast Range province is composed of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks that form the Franciscan Assemblage. The Franciscan Assemblage in this region of California is Jurassic to Cretaceous-aged (approximately 65 to 150 million years old), and consists primarily of greenstone (altered volcanic rocks), basalt, chert (ancient silica-rich ocean deposits), and sandstone that originated as ancient sea floor sediments.

Comments

6a) Would the project 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; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or iv) landslides?


i-iv) Less than Significant Impact. The project facilities at the project sites would be unoccupied except during periodic maintenance visits. Therefore, the potential risk to people or structures from fault rupture at a project is considered less than significant.

The proposed project lies within a region of California that contains many active and potentially active faults and is considered an area of high seismic activity.9 As a result, a significant event on any of these active faults could potentially result in substantial damage to various improvements. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities evaluated the probability of one or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area within the next 30 years. The result of the evaluation indicated a 63 percent likelihood that such an earthquake event would occur in the Bay Area between 2008 and 2037 (USGS, 2008).

The closest active faults to the project sites include the San Andreas fault (running northwest to southeast in the center portion of the County), the Hayward fault (running northwest to southeast in the eastern-central part of the County), Calaveras fault (running northwest to southeast in the northeastern portion of the County), San Gregorio Fault (running northwest to southeast along the westernmost part of the County), Monte Vista fault (running northwest to southeast in the north 8 A geomorphic province is an area that possesses similar bedrock, structure, history, and age. California has 11

geomorphic provinces. 9 An “active” fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene

time (approximately the last 11,000 years). A “potentially active” fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. “Sufficiently active” is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches.



central part of the county); and the Sargent fault and Vergeles fault (running northwest to southeast in the southern portion of the County) (USGS, 2006). The San Andreas and the Hayward-Calaveras fault segments are considered to have the highest potential for causing a significant earthquake in the Bay Area.

Ground motions within the Loma Prieta earthquake epicenter region were approximately 0.6 g (CGS, 1990). Structures on alluvium or artificial fill are generally more susceptible to damage than structures on bedrock.10 In addition, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that ground shaking in the project area would most likely be felt as violent if a moment magnitude 6.7 earthquake were to occur on the San Andreas fault zone (ABAG, 2006). Underlying geologic materials can intensify ground shaking; areas that are underlain by bedrock tend to experience less ground shaking than those underlain by unconsolidated sediments such as artificial fill. Since the project sites (the combined ECOMM sytem) are mostly located on Quaternary-age undivided surface deposits, which consist of a mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay, as well as artificial fill, it is likely that ground shaking would be intensified during an earthquake event.

Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable during an earthquake, building codes and construction ordinances have been established to protect against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. Because the sites are not manned (only for brief periods for maintenance), the potential for human injury is low. The design and construction of the proposed facilities and their foundations, in accordance with current applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the California Building Code (CBC), and FCC requirements would reduce the potential for injury and structural damage. Therefore, the potential impact from seismic events would be less than significant.

6b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?


No Impact. No soil disturbance would occur at any of the Category 2 sites, so there is no potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.


Less than Significant Impact. Minimal grading would occur at the 2 sites where excavation would be required to install a new monopole, lattice tower and/or an equipment shelter (Sierra Azul and Fire Station 29). Ground disturbance may also be required at site where the County plans to install monopoles, lattice towers and/or equipment shelters in the future. The proposed project and all individual Category 3 sites would be subject to all local ordinances and laws, as well as Best Management Practices and requirements of any Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) prepared for a site to reduce soil erosion. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would result in a less than significant impact in all Category 3 sites.

10 Alluvial and alluvium refers to deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited by a stream or running water.



6c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

ECOMM System and All Category 2 and 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites)):

Less than Significant Impact. The individual sites are located on rooftops of existing buildings or existing monopoles and towers, or at existing telecommunications sites that have been previously analyzed for stability and include structures similar to the proposed project. A geotechnical evaluation would be required for each individual site that requires installation of a pole or tower prior to grading of the site. The geotechnical evaluation would provide recommendations to reduce geological hazards to acceptable levels in accordance with local building code requirements. Therefore, impacts resulting from unstable ground would be less than significant for all Category 2 and Category 3 sites.

6d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the report, Soils of Santa Clara County, creating substantial risks to life or property?


No Impact. All individual Category 2 (proposed and future) sites are located on rooftops of existing buildings or existing monopoles and towers, or at existing telecommunications sites that have been previously analyzed for stability and include structures similar to the proposed project. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts from expansive soils for these sites.


Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are often remedied during pre-construction site preparation either through treatment with lime or replacement with engineered fill. A geotechnical evaluation would be required to specify such necessary measures for each individual Category 3 site (prior to grading of the site for installation of a pole or tower). Therefore, impacts from expansive soils for Category 3 sites would be less than significant.

6e) Would the project 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 waste water?


Less than Significant Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project (as the project would not generate any wastewater). Furthermore, the proposed project would not disturb soils to the degree that would preclude the placement of septic tanks or wastewater disposal systems in the future, should the intended uses at any of the individual sites change. Therefore, impacts to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be less than significant.



6f) Would the project cause substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site?


No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any ground-disturbing activities on any of the Category 2 sites, including sites for which plans have been developed and possible future sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve any construction that would result in a substantial compaction or over-covering of soil, either on-site or off-site and would, thus, result in no impact.

Categories 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in minor ground disturbances at the Fire Station 29 and Sierra Azule sites, as well as five other possible future Category 3 sites. Ground disturbances at these locations would be limited to construction of an 10 foot by 12 foot equipment shelters and/or installation of a pole/tower for the mounting of microwave antennas. At all sites, construction would be limited to less than one acre and would not require substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

6g) Would the project cause substantial change in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?


Less than Significant Impact. No substantial excavation, grading, or fill is proposed on a system-wide level or at any of the individual project sites, including sites for which plans have been developed, or possible future sites. At Category 3 sites, ground disturbance would be limited to small areas in order to accommodate placement of equipment shelters and/or monopoles or towers. These would not substantially change the topography at those sites, since they are already developed with similar communications-related equipment. The remainder of the proposed installations (Category 2 sites) would occur on rooftops of existing buildings or on existing poles or towers. Based on the above, the proposed project would not increase soil instability at any of the individual sites and this impact would be less than significant.

6h) Involve significant change in surface features (wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion? (NEPA)


No Impact. There would be no surface feature changes associated with the System or any of the Category 2 or Category 3 sites. Further, disturbances for the Category 3 sites would be within established (and, therefore, previously disturbed) communications facilities. Thus, there would be no impact to surface features, since the proposed project would not require any change in surface features such as filling wetlands, extensive tree removal, or water diversion.



References

County of Santa Clara, 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan: 1995-2010. December 20.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG02), Fact Sheet 2008-3027, Forecasting California’s Earthquakes – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf, 2008.

_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

7. 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 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?

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

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area 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) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) 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?

h) Provide breeding grounds for vectors?

i) Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?

j) Involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of 30% or greater?

k) Involve construction of a roadway greater than 20% slope for a distance of 300' or more?

l) Cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation in excess of Federal Communications Commission-adopted guidelines? (NEPA)



Discussion

The U.S. EPA defines a “hazardous” material as one “which, because of its quantity, concentrations, or physiochemical or infectious properties, may either increase mortality or produce irreversible or incapacitating illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed” (U.S. Public Health and Welfare Code, §6903). Materials and wastes that exhibit hazardous properties require special handling and management. Their treatment, storage, transport, and disposal are highly regulated by federal, State, and local governments, which minimize the risk to the public presented by these potential hazards.

The federal hazardous waste laws are generally known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Any business, institution, or other entity that uses hazardous materials and generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed. The EPA has primary responsibility for implementing RCRA, but California received authorization to implement RCRA in August 1992. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control oversees implementation of RCRA, and implements and enforces California’s own hazardous waste laws. Chapter 6.95, Section 25503(a) of the California Health and Safety Code and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations §2729, et seq., require any business that handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material in reportable quantities to establish and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The State’s minimum reportable quantities are 500 pounds for a solid, 55 gallons for a liquid, and 200 cubic feet for a gas at standard temperature and pressure.

Hazards from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation is another possible public health and safety effect at communications sites. RF is defined as a type of electromagnetic energy that includes radio waves and microwaves – two forms of electromagnetic waves that are used for telecommunications and broadcasting. In general, electromagnetic energy, which manifests itself in the form of waves and particles called photons, is a ubiquitous phenomenon in our daily lives. The familiar manifestations, ranging from the longer waves and lower frequencies to the shorter waves and higher frequencies, include AM radio, FM radio, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays. The higher the frequency of the electromagnetic waves, the greater the energy associated with them.

Microwaves are specific bands of radio waves with frequencies that range upward from several hundred megahertz (MHz) to several gigahertz (GHz). Microwaves are widely used for telecommunications such as for cellular radio, personal communications services, microwave point-to-point communication, transmission links between ground stations and orbiting satellites, and in certain broadcasting operations such as studio-to-transmitter and electronic news gathering radio links. One familiar and widespread use of microwave energy is in household microwave ovens, which operate at a frequency of 2.45 GHz. Another is for WI-FI communications; types



802.11b and 802.11g use 2.4 GHz band, type 802.11a uses 5 GHz, and type 802.11n uses 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz. Bluetooth devices, baby monitors and cordless telephones also use the 2.4 GHz band.

Point-to-point microwave antennas, such as those proposed for ECOMM, transmit and receive microwave signals across relatively short distances (from a few tenths of a mile to 30 miles or more). These antennas are typically rectangular or circular in shape and are mounted on a supporting tower, on rooftops, sides of buildings or on similar structures that provide solid support for the antennas and in locations with clear and unobstructed line-of-sight paths between both ends of a transmission path or link. Solid support is required to maintain the precise alignment of the microwave antenna.

All of the existing project communication sites include associated radio units, switching mechanisms and batteries. The proposed ECOMM microwave radios and antennas would operate at frequencies of 6.7 GHz, 11.2 GHz and 18.7 GHz. All electronic equipment would be housed either in a room inside an adjacent building or in a fully enclosed and secured equipment shelter constructed on a concrete pad formed without a drain and with a raised perimeter to contain spilled fluids. Electronic equipment spaces would be air-conditioned. Sites with equipment shelters do have, or would have, a generator and either a propane tank or diesel tank to power the generator.

Comments

7a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

ECOMM System:

No Impact. There is no aspect of the ECOMM system operations that could create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.

All Category 2 and 3 Sites (Proposed and Future Sites):

Less than Significant Impact. Each project site includes one or more batteries that are similar in size and electrical capacity to typical automobile batteries. These batteries are housed in the equipment racks inside the equipment rooms or shelters (wee Figure 3, Typical ECOMM Equipment Rack Configuration). These batteries power the communications equipment when the utility electrical power fails. Small, dry batteries are also used at the sites to power other equipment; these are handled and disposed of as Universal Waste. Isolated communication sites also have an emergency generator and fuel to power the generator.

Radio frequency (RF) radiation, as used here refers to electromagnetic waves or radiation that includes radio waves and microwaves used for communications. At specific power levels, which vary with the frequency of the electromagnetic waves, RF radiation can present a health hazard to people. In general, the ECOMM system operates at frequencies and at power levels that pose



little risk to the public, especially given the rooftop locations of their antennas, which provides for substantial separation between these antennas and the public. These antennas are licensed by the FCC, pursuant to Title 47, Part 1, Subpart I, Section 1.1310 of the FCC Guidelines, in a process that imposes safety and engineering requirements upon design and operation. All microwave antennas and equipment installed on the sites are required to comply with the maximum permissible exposure limits for human health and safety. In order for a site to obtain operating licenses from the FCC, RF emissions must not exceed these established standards. Therefore, with implementation in accordance with FCC regulations, the potential impact of RF radiation would be less than significant.

Propane, if present at a site, is used to power the back-up emergency generator and is stored in a standard propane pressure tank. Similarly, if diesel is present at a site, it is stored in a small secure tank. Propane and/or diesel are trucked into the site to replenish the tanks as the fuel is consumed. Both the larger and the small batteries are transported for periodic replacement. The storage and transportation of these hazardous materials are fully regulated by state and federal law. However, to further reduce the potential for exposure of hazardous materials during transport, use, or disposal, the project construction contractor would comply with Best Management Practices, similar to the following:

The project’s construction contractor qualifies as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG), which allows the project to participate in Santa Clara County and surrounding Counties CESQG Disposal Program to properly dispose and/or recycle the materials involved with the decommissioning of wireless telecommunication structures. The ECOMM system construction contractor would follow all federal, state and local regulations with regards to the disposal of all materials involved with the decommission of the wireless telecommunication structures for each affected jurisdiction. Therefore, impacts resulting in significant hazards to the public or environment through transport or disposal would be less than significant.

Handling of Universal Waste (Batteries) / Management of Universal Waste:

A small quantity handler of universal waste shall manage universal waste batteries in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or component of universal waste to the environment as follows:

1) A small quantity handler of universal waste shall contain any universal waste battery that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions in a container. The container shall be closed, structurally sound, compatible with contents of the battery and shall lack evidence, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonable foreseeable conditions.

2) A small quantity handler of universal waste may conduct the following activities as long as the casing of each individual battery cell is not breached and remains intact and closed, (except that cells may be opened to remove electrolyte but shall be immediately closed after removal):

a. Sorting batteries by type; b. Mixing battery types in one container; c. Discharging batteries so as to remove the electric charge;



d. Regenerating used batteries; e. Disassembling batteries or battery packs into individual batteries or cells; f. Removing batteries from consumer products; or g. Removing electrolyte from batteries

3) A small quantity handler of universal waste who removes electrolyte from batteries, or who generates other solid waste, (e.g. battery pack materials, discarded consumer products) as a result of the activities listed above, shall determine whether the electrolyte and/or other solid waste exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste.

h. If the electrolyte and/or other solid waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it is subject to all applicable requirements. The handler is considered the generator of the hazardous electrolyte and/or other waste and is subject to follow the applicable requirements set forth for generators of hazardous waste;

i. If the electrolyte or other solid waste is not hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in compliance with applicable federal, state or local solid waste regulations.

Labeling/Marking of Universal Waste Batteries:

A small quantity handler of universal waste shall label or mark the universal waste to identify the type of universal waste as specified following:

Universal waste batteries, (i.e. each battery) or a container in which the batteries are contained, shall be labeled or marked clearly with any one of the following phrases: “Universal Waste – Battery(ies)”, or “Waste Battery(ies)”, or “Used Battery(ies)”

Employee Training:

A small quantity handler of universal waste shall inform all employees who handle or have responsibility for managing universal waste. The information shall describe proper handling and emergency procedures appropriate to the type(s) of universal waste handled at the facility.

Response to Releases:

A small quantity handler of universal waste shall immediately contain all releases of universal wastes and other residues from universal wastes.

A small quantity handler of universal waste shall determine whether any material resulting from the release is hazardous waste, and if so, shall manage the hazardous waste in compliance with all applicable requirements. The handler is considered the generator of the material resulting from the release, and shall manage it according to the applicable requirements set forth for the generators of hazardous waste.

Waste consisting of only residues of leaking, broken, or otherwise damaged universal waste may be managed as universal waste provided that the leaking, broken or otherwise damaged universal waste is repackaged according to Item 1, above, of the handling universal waste battery section.

Off-Site Shipments:



A small quantity handler of universal waste is prohibited from sending or taking universal waste to a place other then another universal waste handler, a destination facility, or a foreign destination.

If a small quantity handler of universal waste self-transports universal waste off-site, the handler becomes a universal waste transporter for those self-transportation activities and shall comply with the transporter requirements mentioned in this policy while transporting the universal waste.

If a universal waste being offered for off-site transportation meets the definition of hazardous materials under 49 CFR parts 171 through 180, a small quantity handler of universal waste shall package, label, mark and placard the shipment, and prepare the proper shipping papers in accordance with the applicable Department of Transportation regulations under 49 CFR parts 172 through 180.

Prior to sending a shipment of universal waste to another universal waste handler, the originating handler shall ensure that the receiving handler agrees to receive the shipment.

If a small quantity handler of universal waste sends a shipment of universal waste to another handler or a destination facility and the shipment is rejected by the receiving handler or destination facility the original handler shall either: 1) Receive the waste back when notified that the shipment has been rejected; or 2) Agree with the receiving handler on a destination facility to which the shipment would be sent.

Tracking Universal Waste Shipments:

A small quantity handler of universal waste shall keep a record of each shipment of universal waste sent from the handler to other facilities. The record may take the form of a log, invoice, manifest, bill of lading or other shipping document. The record of each shipment of universal waste sent shall include the following information: 1) The name and address of the universal waste handler, destination facility, or foreign destination to whom the universal waste was sent; 2) The quantity of each type of universal waste sent, (e.g. batteries, thermostats, lamps mercury switches, etc.); and 3) The date the shipment of universal waste left the facility. A small quantity handler of universal waste shall retain the records described above for at least three years from the date of shipment of universal waste left the facility.

Prohibitions:

A small quantity handler of universal waste is: 1) Prohibited from disposing of universal waste; and 2) Prohibited from diluting or treating universal waste, except by responding to releases.

Notification:

A small quantity handler of universal waste is not required to notify the Department or the US EPA of universal waste handling activities except for small quantity universal waste electronic device handlers.

Transportation of Universal Waste (Batteries) / Management of Universal Waste:

A universal waste transporter shall comply with all applicable US Department of Transportation regulations under 49 CFR part 171 through 180 for transport of any universal waste that meets the definition of hazardous material in 49 CFR 171.8. For purposes of the DOT regulations, a material is considered a hazardous waste if it is subject



to the Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency specified in 40 CFR Part 262. Because universal waste does not require a hazardous waste manifest, it is not required a hazardous waste under the DOT regulations.

Some universal waste materials are regulated by the DOT as hazardous materials because they meet the criteria for one or more hazard classes specified in 49 CFR 173.2. As universal waste shipments do not require a manifest under chapter 12, (standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste) and are conditionally exempt from classification as a hazardous waste, they may not be described by the DOT proper shipping name “hazardous waste”.

Storage Time Limits:

A universal waste transporter or a CRT material transporter may only store the universal waste or CRT materials at a universal waste transfer facility for ten days or less in an area zoned “industrial” and for six days or less in all other areas.

If a universal waste transporter or a CRT materials transporter stores universal waste or CRT material for more than ten days in an area zoned “industrial” or for more than six days in any other area, the transporter becomes a universal waste handler or a CRT material handler and shall comply with the applicable requirements.

Response to Releases:

A universal waste transporter shall immediately contain all releases of universal wastes and other residues from universal wastes.

A universal waste transporter shall determine whether any material resulting from the release is hazardous waste, and if so, it is subject to all applicable requirements. If the waste is determined to be hazardous waste, the transporter is subject to the standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste.

Waste consisting only of residues of leaking, broken, or otherwise damaged universal waste may be managed as universal waste provided that the leaking, broken, or otherwise damaged universal waste is repackaged to the standards mentioned in number 1 of the section for handling universal waste, (batteries) / management of universal waste.

Off-Site Shipments:

A universal waste transporter is prohibited from transporting the universal waste to a place other than a universal waste handler, destination facility, or a foreign destination. If the universal waste being shipped off-site meets the DOT’s definition of hazardous materials under 49 CFR section 171.8, the shipment shall be properly described on a shipping paper in accordance with the applicable DOT regulations under 49 CFR part 172.

7b) Would the project 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?

ECOMM System:

No Impact. There is no aspect of the ECOMM system operations that could create a hazard to the public or to the environment through upset or accident.




Less than Significant Impact. The ECOMM system and individual sites would generate hazardous waste by the use of batteries and accident or upset scenarios could involve propane or diesel at each of the isolated sites. Therefore, there could be upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials, either at the site or during transport. Upset or accident involving propane could pose risks of fire or explosion, while diesel could involve a minor risk of fire. Sites that use propane are isolated and would not pose a risk to the public. Sites close to dwellings use diesel but are expected to pose little risk. Sites in existing buildings usually rely on the building’s emergency power system and do not pose accident or upset risks.

The total quantities of hazardous materials at any single communication site are typically small, and the individual sites are isolated from the public, either by physical isolation of the site itself or by being housed in secure shelters or interior equipment rooms of public buildings. In the event of a fire or other upset condition, the risk of a substantive release of hazardous materials is negligible.

To reduce or avoid impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials, the project construction contractor would comply with the following Best Management Practices (2009 IS/MND and EA):

Materials Storage

Prevent, reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants from material storage to the stormwater system or watercourses by minimizing the storage of hazardous materials and universal waste on site, storing materials in a designated area, installing secondary containment and training employees and subcontractors;

Temporary storage areas shall be located away from vehicular traffic;

Construction site areas shall be designated for material delivery, pick-up and storage;

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be supplied for all stored materials;

During the rainy season, consider storing materials in a covered area. If it is not feasible to store in a covered area measures shall be taken to cover the material with a sufficient tarp and secured as to prevent contact with rain;

Do not store chemicals, drums, or bagged materials directly on the ground. Place these items on a pallet, and when possible a secondary containment;

Chemicals shall be kept in their original labeled containers;

Employees and subcontractors shall be trained on the proper material delivery and storage practices;

Employees trained in emergency spill cleanup procedures must be present when dangerous materials or liquid chemicals are transported;

Throughout the rainy season, each temporary containment facility shall be covered during non-working days, prior to and during rain events;



Spill Clean-Up

Contain and clean up any spill immediately;

Properly remove and dispose of any hazardous materials or universal waste or contaminated soil if significant residual materials remain on the ground after construction is complete.

7c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?


Less than Significant Impact. No acutely hazardous materials would be present at any site. Other hazardous materials are in common forms, such as batteries, and in small quantities that would not result in emissions that would be hazardous off-site.

There are no existing or proposed schools within a one-quarter mile radius of the Category 3 sites.

7d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?


No Impact. Although exterior actions are involved at the Category 2 sites, there would be no soil or groundwater disturbance, and therefore no impact.


Less than Significant Impact. A hazardous materials database search was conducted using the State Water Quality Control Board GeoTracker database as well as the Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor database to search for leaking underground storage tank sites, hazardous materials leaks and spills incidents, and groundwater concerns (SWRCB, 2012 and DTSC, 2012). None of the sites for which plans have been developed or possible future sites were identified on any of the lists that were searched.

Because it is not expected that impacted groundwater or soil would be encountered due to the minimal disturbance area and shallow grading that would occur, impacts related to significant hazards to the public or environment through transport or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.



7e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area 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?

ECOMM System:

No Impact. No aspect of ECOMM system operations could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.


Less than Significant Impact. The ECOMM System would have no adverse affect on any airport land use plan. All microwave antennas installed at the sites are required to comply with the standards of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for federal aviation safety requirements.

No project action would install antennas higher than the tops of presently existing towers. Of the new poles to be constructed, all would be lower than existing structures or antennas that exist nearby, and therefore not present a new physical hazard.

Overall, none of the noise or safety policies in the ALUC's Land Use Plan would apply. Also, because all sites are un-manned, the impact of Single Event Noise Level on persons is minimal to non-existent. Therefore, impacts associated with airports would be less than significant.

7f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?


No Impact. The ECOMM System and the individual sites would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. In fact, the system and the sites would be part of the emergency response planning in that it would allow several jurisdictions to quickly communicate with each other in the event of a catastrophic event, such as an earthquake or a large fire.

7g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?


No Impact. Although some of the sites are located in rural and wild areas, maintenance of the sites is currently conducted on a regular basis, and any hazardous vegetation is removed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts with regards to propagating wildland fires.



7h) Would the project provide breeding grounds for vectors?


No Impact. Site construction for the three sites that involve ground disturbance would involve cleanup to prevent ponding or retention of water on the small area of the site that would be disturbed. Therefore, the project would not provide breeding grounds for vectors, so no impact would occur.

7i) Would the project’s proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?


No Impact. Communication sites are unmanned, with no need for public access, and are designed to operate autonomously with high reliability, so traffic is infrequent and no safety hazard could result. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard.

7j) Would the project involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of 30% or greater?


No Impact. Although some of the sites would be located on hilltops in rural areas, all sites are presently graded. No roads would be constructed or re-graded. Since communication sites are unmanned, no septic systems would be constructed. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts with regards to construction on slopes of 30% or greater.

7k) Would the project involve construction of a roadway greater than 20% slope for a distance of 300' or more?


No Impact. Although some sites would be located on hilltops in rural areas, all sites are presently graded. No roads would be constructed or re-graded. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts from construction of a roadway on slopes of 20% or greater.

7l) Would the project cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation in excess of Federal Communications Commission-adopted guidelines? (NEPA)


Less than Significant Impact. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) governs the requirements for radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions would "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impacts on the



environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations.

The RF signals from point-to-point antennas, such as the microwave dish antennas proposed in the ECOMM system, travel in a directed beam from a focused transmitting antenna to a directional receiving antenna, and dispersion of microwave energy outside of the relatively narrow focused beam is minimal or insignificant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low power levels, usually on the order of tens of watts or less. Measurements have shown that ground-level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. Moreover, the ECOMM microwave tower sites are designed to be inaccessible to the general public and the ECOMM microwave paths are intended to be well clear of obstacles, in order to insure the high operating reliability of the system. These design measures provide an added margin of safety for the public, since significant RF exposures from these microwave antennas could only occur if an individual were to stand directly in front of and very close to an antenna for a long time (FCC, 1999; 1997).

Pursuant to Title 47 CFR Part 1, Section 1.1310 of the FCC Guidelines, all microwave antennas and equipment installed on the site are required to comply with the maximum permissible exposure limits for human health and safety. In order for the sites to obtain operating licenses from the FCC, RF emissions must not exceed these established standards. The FCC maximum exposure limits are shown below:

FCC MAXIMUM EXPOSURE LIMITS

Frequency Range (MHz)

Electric Field Strength (V/m)

Magnetic Field Strength (A/m)

Power Density (mW/cm2)

Averaging Time (minutes)

(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposures 0.3 to 3.0 614 1.63 *(100) 6

3.0 to 30 1842/f 4.89/f *(900/f2) 6

30 to 300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6

300 to 1,500 -- -- f/300 6

1,500 to 100,000 -- -- 5 6

(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposures 0.3 to 1.34 614 1.63 *(100) 30

1.34 to 30 824/f 2.19/f *(180/f2) 30

30 to 300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30

300 to 1,500 -- -- f/1500 30

1,500 to 100,000 -- -- 1.0 30

f = frequency in MHz * = Plane-wave equivalent power density A. Occupational/controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those

persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure.

B. General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exercise control over their exposure.

SOURCE: FCC Guidelines Title 47 CFR, Part 1, Section 1.1310 (August 1996)



The FCC requires the proposed ECOMM microwave transmitters to be "Type Accepted" before they may be offered for sale commercially. The type acceptance process verifies the transmitter's signal would neither interfere with other adjacent users nor exceed the safety standards called out by the FCC's Office of Engineering Technology (OET). When the frequency coordination process was performed by the project engineers, the data sheets that are part of the Engineering Study show the transmitter power output, the antenna gains, and the total radiated power of that site's installation. These calculations are required to obtain the FCC license for the frequency channel.

The proposed ECOMM microwave radios and antennas would operate at frequencies of 6 GHz (6,000 MHz), 11 GHz (11,000 MHz) and 18 GHz (18,000 MHz), all of which are within the highest frequency range established for maximum exposure limits shown above. As such, the exposure limit for a member of the general public would be 1.0 mW/cm2 (1/1,000 of a watt on each square centimeter of area) over an averaging time of 30 minutes. Given the power of the radios and the sizes of the microwave antennas, direct exposure to the focused beam of a dish antenna would be close to or might exceed the FCC criterion for public exposure. However, as noted above, the design of the system, and especially the locations of the antennas on towers in secured sites, ensures that public exposure does not occur, because it excludes the public from all areas where direct exposure could occur.

Therefore, impacts to human health and safety resulting from RF exposure from the ECOMM project would be less than significant.

References

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 47, Part 1, Subpart I, sections 1.1301 to 1.1319.

County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), 2007. Land use review conducted by Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner III. August 16.

FCC, 1997. OET Bulletin 65: Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation. Edition 97-01, August.

_________________________





Impact




Impact No Impact

8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project:

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

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Note policy regarding flood retention in watercourse and restoration of riparian vegetation for West Branch of the Llagas.)

e) Create or contribute increased impervious surfaces and associated runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

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

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?

k) Be located in an area known to have high levels of nitrates in well water?

l) Result in a septic field being constructed on soil where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface?

m) Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course or water body or 200 feet of a reservoir at capacity?

n) Conflict with Water Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams?



Comments

8a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?


Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project or any of the individual sites would not affect water quality or require discharge into water bodies or streams. None of the sites are located adjacent to a waterway. In addition, the following Best Management Practices would be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce or eliminate discharge and runoff during construction and installation of project components (Jones, 2010):

Erosion Control:

Erosion control is any source control practice that protects the soil surface and prevents soil particles from being detached by rainfall, flowing water or wind. Erosion control is also referred to as soil stabilization.

All in active soil-disturbed areas on the project site, and most active areas prior to the onset of rain, must be protected from erosion.

Scheduling:

Monitor the weather forecast for rainfall;

When rainfall is predicted, adjust the construction schedule to allow the implementation of soil stabilization and sediment treatment controls on all disturbed areas prior to rain;

Preservation of Existing Vegetation:

Mark areas to be preserved with temporary fencing. Include sufficient setback to protect roots:

- Orange colored plastic mesh fencing works well;

- Use appropriate fence posts and adequate post spacing and depth to completely support the fence in an upright position.

Locate temporary roadways, stockpiles, and layout areas to avoid stands of trees, shrubs and grass;

Maintain existing irrigation systems where feasible. Temporary irrigation may be required;

Instruct employees and subcontractors to honor protective devices. Prohibit heavy equipment, vehicular traffic, or storage of construction materials within the protected area;

Retain protective measures until all other construction activity is complete to avoid damage during site clean up and stabilization.

Sediment Control:

Sediment control is any practice that traps soil particles after they have been detached and moved by rain, flowing water or wind. Sediment control measures are usually



passive systems that rely on filtering or settling the particles out of the water or wind that is transporting them.

Silt Fence:

A silt fence shall be made from a filter fabric that has been entrenched, attached to supporting poles, and shall sometimes be backed by a plastic or wire mesh for support;

A silt fence shall detain sediment-laden water, promoting sedimentation behind the fence;

Suitable silt fence applications shall include:

- Along the perimeter of a project;

- Below the toe or down slope of exposed and erodible slopes;

- Along streams and channels;

- Along temporary spoil areas and stockpiles;

- Below other small cleared areas.

Use silt fences principally in areas where sheet flow occurs;

Don’t use in streams, channels, or anywhere flow is concentrated. Don’t use silt fences to divert flow;

Don’t use below slopes subject to creep, slumping or landslides;

Select filter fabric that retains 85% of soil by weight, based on sieve analysis, but that is not finer than an equivalent opening size of 70;

Install along a level contour, so water does not pond more than 1.5ft at any point along the silt fence;

The maximum length of slope draining to any point along the silt fence should be 200ft or less;

Silt fences should remain in place until the disturbed area is permanently stabilized.

Fiber Rolls:

A fiber roll shall consist of straw, flax or other similar materials bound into a tight tubular roll. When fiber rolls are placed at the toe and on the face of slopes, they intercept runoff, reduce its flow velocity, release the runoff as sheet flow, and provide removal of sediment from the runoff. Suitable applications for fiber rolls include the following:

- Along the toe, top, face and at grade breaks of exposed and erodible slopes to shorten slope length and spread runoff as sheet flow;

- At the end of a downward slope where it transitions to a steeper slope;

- Along the perimeter of a project;

- Down slope of exposed soil areas;

- Around temporary stockpiles.

Turn the ends of the fiber roll up slope to prevent runoff from going around the roll.

Locate fiber rolls on level contours spaced as follows:



- Slope inclination of 4:1 (H:V) or flatter: Fiber rolls shall be placed at a maximum interval of 20 ft;

- Slope inclination of 4:1 to 2:1 (H:V): Fiber rolls shall be placed at a maximum interval of 15ft. (a closer spacing is more effective);

- Slope inclination of 2:1 (H:V) or greater: Fiber rolls shall be placed at a maximum interval of 10ft. (a closer spacing is more effective).

Stake fiber rolls into a 2 to 4 in deep trench with a width equal to the diameter of the fiber roll.

Gravel Bags:

A gravel bag berm is a series of gravel-filled bags placed on a level contour to intercept sheet flow. Gravel bags pond sheet flow runoff, allowing sediment to settle out, and release runoff slowly as sheet flows, preventing erosion. Suitable applications for gravel bag berms are as follows:

- As a linear sediment control measure;

- Below the toe of slopes and erodible slopes;

- As sediment traps at culvert/pipe outlets;

- Below other small cleared areas;

- Along the perimeter of the site;

- Down slope of exposed soil areas;

- Around temporary stockpiles and spoil areas;

- Parallel to a roadway to keep sediment off paved areas.

- At the top of slopes to divert runoff away from disturbed slopes;

- As check dams across mildly sloped construction roads;

Turn the ends of the gravel bag barriers up slope to prevent runoff from going around the berm;

Allow sufficient space up slope from the gravel bag berm to allow ponding, and to provide room for sediment storage;

Butt ends of bags tightly;

On multiple row, or multiple layer construction, overlap butt joints of adjacent row and row beneath;

Use a pyramid approach when stacking bags.

Materials shall consist of the following:

- Bag Material: Bags shall be woven polypropylene, polyethylene, or polyamide fabric or burlap, minimum unit weight of 4 ounces/yd2, Mullen burst strength exceeding 300 lbs/in2;

- Bag Size: Each gravel filled bag shall have a length of 18 inches, width of 12 inches, thickness of 3 inches and mass of approximately 33 lbs;

- Fill Material: Fill material shall be 0.5 to 1 inch. Class 2 aggregate base, clean and free from clay, organic matter and other deleterious material, or other suitable open graded, non-cohesive, porous gravel.



Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control:

Waste management and materials pollution control BMPs are source control BMPs that prevent pollution by limiting or reducing potential pollutants at their source before they come into contact with stormwater. Materials pollution control consists of implementing BMPs in the handling, storing and use of construction materials.

Vehicle Equipment and Fueling:

Vehicle equipment fueling procedures and practices are designed to prevent fuel spills and leaks, and reduce or eliminate contamination of stormwater;

These procedures are suitable on all construction sites where vehicle and equipment fueling takes place;

Use off site fueling stations as much as possible. These businesses are better equipped to handle fuel and spills properly;

Discourage “topping off” of fuel tanks;

Absorbent spill cleanup materials and spill kits shall be available in fueling areas and on fueling trucks, and shall be disposed of properly after use;

Drip pans or absorbent pads shall be used during vehicle and equipment fueling;

Use absorbent materials on spills. Do not hose down or bury the spill. Remove the absorbent materials promptly and dispose of properly;

Train employees and subcontractors in proper fueling and cleanup procedures;

Material Storage:

Prevent, reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants from material storage to the stormwater system or watercourses by minimizing the storage of hazardous materials and universal waste on site, storing materials in a designated area, installing secondary containment and training employees and subcontractors;

Temporary storage area shall be located away from vehicular traffic;

Construction site areas shall be designated for material delivery, pick-up and storage;

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be supplied for all stored materials;

During the rainy season, consider storing materials in a covered area. If it is not feasible to store in a covered area measures shall be taken to cover the material with a sufficient tarp and secured as to prevent contact with rain;

Do not store chemicals, drums, or bagged materials directly on the ground. Place these items on a pallet, and when possible a secondary containment;

Chemicals shall be kept in their original labeled containers;

Employees and subcontractors shall be trained on the proper material delivery and storage practices;

Employees trained in emergency spill cleanup procedures must be present when dangerous materials or liquid chemicals are transported;

Throughout the rainy season, each temporary containment facility shall be covered during non-working days, prior to and during rain events;



Spill Clean-Up:

Contain and clean up any spill immediately;

Properly remove and dispose of any hazardous materials or universal waste or contaminated soil if significant residual materials remain on the ground after construction is complete.

With implementation of the above BMPs, impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

8b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?


No Impact. Neither the proposed overall project nor the individual sites would require the use of any groundwater nor would it interfere with ground water recharge or the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells.

8c) Would the project 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 of siltation on- or off-site?


No Impact. The project would not alter the course of any streams or rivers. Minimal grading would occur at sites requiring installation of a monopole/tower or equipment shelters (all Category 3 sites, with the exception of Rinconada Water Treatment Facility, where no grading would occur). Such grading would not result in substantial erosion of siltation on or off site. Construction activities would comply with BMPs for erosion control as described in Paragraph 8a), above, and all local ordinances that would be required as conditions of approval to the project to minimize or avoid such impacts.

8d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?


No Impact. The project system and all Category 2 sites would not increase stormwater runoff, nor alter the course of any streams or rivers as there would be no grading or additional impervious surfaces.




Less than Significant Impact. At all of the Category 3 sites, minimal grading would occur to accommodate the installation of a new monopole/tower, a new equipment shelter or a replacement shelter. A summary of impervious surfaces that would be added by the proposed project at both of the Category 3 sites for which plans have been developed, and 6 possible future sites are shown in Table 8-1.

TABLE 8-1 SUMMARY OF INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA (CATEGORY 3 PROPOSED SITES)

Site Name Structure Surface Area

Increased Impervious Surface

(square feet)

Fire Station 29 New monopole

New Equipment Shelter

3 foot diameter at base (approx)

120 square feet equipment shelter pad (approx)

7

120

Sierra Azule New monopole

New Equipment Shelter

3 foot diameter at base (approx)

96 square feet for equipment shelter pad (approx.)

7

96

Total Increase in Impervious Surface Area in feet 230 SOURCE: Santa Clara County, 2012; ESA, 2012.

The total additional impervious surface area that would occur with construction of the proposed project would be approximately 230 feet, which is not a substantial increase over existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

8e) Would the project create or contribute increased impervious surfaces and associated runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?


Less than Significant Impact. See Paragraph 8d), above.

8f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?


Less than Significant Impact. As described above (Paragraphs 8a through 8e), through the implementation of BMPs and the fact that most of the project sites would not alter drainage patterns or affect water sources in any way, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality within the ECOMM system area or at individual sites below existing standards.



8g) Would the project 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?


No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction or placement of housing at any of the sites. In addition, none of the individual sites are located within a 100-year flood hazard area or floodplain.

8h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows?


No Impact. The proposed Category 2 sites would be installed on existing structures such as rooftops or monopoles or lattice towers. The individual Category 3 sites that require construction of a monopole or lattice tower or new equipment room are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or floodplain.

8i) Would the project 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?


Less than Significant Impact. The individual sites that are located on higher elevations such as hilltops would not be affected by dam failures. These sites include: Seirra Azul, Mt. Chual, Black Mountain, Dahl Water Tank, and Carol Drive. The other sites could be subject to flooding from dam failure due to their location within the valley floor or near the shoreline (Palo Alto Public Works), but the likelihood is remote. These individual sites are either located on rooftops of buildings ranging from 1 to 15 stories or more, or are located on monopoles that are 10 feet tall or higher. Therefore, flooding impacts to the project due to dam failure would be less than significant.

8j) Would the project be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?


Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies (8b), would not alter drainage patterns on the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff (8c and 8d), and would not otherwise degrade water quality (8f). Therefore, the project would not adversely affect the Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watersheds or any other area with special water quality concerns. This impact would, thus, be less than significant.



8k) Would the project be located in an area known to have high levels of nitrates in well water?


No Impact. The proposed project would replace radio equipment or microwave antennas, install new antennas on existing poles/towers or construct new poles/towers and/or equipment shelters. The individual project sites would be accessed by authorized personnel on an intermittent basis for routine maintenance and no connections to the existing potable water systems would be established. Although no testing was performed to analyze the nitrate levels in the water in the project areas, since the proposed project would not generate an increase in water demand or require access to local water supplies, this impact is considered less than significant.

8l) Would the project result in a septic field being constructed on soil where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface?


No Impact. The proposed project would replace radio equipment or microwave antennas, install new antennas on existing poles/towers or construct new poles/towers and/or equipment shelters. No construction of a septic field is proposed and, therefore, no impact would occur related to contamination of the water table from septic fields.

8m) Would the project result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well, water course or water body or 200 feet of a reservoir at capacity?


No Impact. No construction of a septic field is proposed and, therefore, no impact would occur related to siting a septic field in proximity to existing water sources.

8n) Would the project conflict with Water Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams?


No Impact. The individual projects would be implemented on existing communications sites at local police or public safety agency facility, the rooftops of buildings, or existing communications sites on hilltops. All ground disturbance and construction activities would comply with all water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would incorporated Best Management Practices (discussed under 8a, above) into the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

References

County of Santa Clara, 2010. “About the County: Natural Environment.” Information from website: http://www.sccgov.org, accessed on January 25, 2010.




_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

9. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project:

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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with special policies:

i) San Martin and/or South County?

ii) Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington Watershed?

iii) Guadalupe Watershed?

iv) Stanford?

v) City of Morgan Hill Urban Growth Boundary Area?

vi) West Valley Hillsides Preservation Area?

vii) Water Collaborative (Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams)?

Comments

9a) Would the project physically divide an established community?


No Impact. The proposed project would install microwave antennas (i.e., “dishes”) on existing structures or construct a new monopole and/or equipment shelters or replace equipment shelters at existing communication sites. The project would not create a physical division of any established community.

9b) Would the project 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?


No Impact. Municipal codes for local jurisdictions provide for the installation of communication networks for telecommunications and emergency services and the installation of new microwave



antennas, monopoles/towers or equipment shelters would occur on sites where such uses already exist and are appropriate. Therefore, the proposed project would be in compliance with applicable land use plans and policies.

The Carol Drive site is located within the Communications Hill Specific Plan area. However, there is no potential land use conflict that would result from the simultaneous implementation of the proposed project and the Communications Hill Specific Plan. The proposed project does not preclude the development on the adjoining parcels in the future. The land use controls that could regulate such development would continue to reside strictly in the appropriate land use entity, be it the City or County.

Because it is clearly possible that the CHSP development, in particular, could adversely affect the ECOMM system when the higher elevations and taller buildings in the CHSP are planned and constructed, the County Communications Department would work cooperatively with MTA Properties to develop mitigation measures that may be needed to avoid any negative impact on public safety communications.

When building designs are proposed, the Department would re-evaluate the affected microwave path, based on the information about the design, height and locations of the buildings proposed. It may be the case that no problem would result. However, if microwave path interruptions would result from any proposed building, solutions commonly used include: 1) establishing an intermediate transmitter and receiver on the top of the new building, to enable the beam to hop over the building; or, 2) moving the transmitter and dish to another elevation on the same tower, or to another nearby tower, to establish a link around the building.

These remedies would also apply to other potential obstructions of ECOMM paths from new development that could occur anywhere along the route of the ECOMM system.

9c) Would the project conflict with special policies, including the following:

San Martin and/or South County; Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington Watershed; Guadalupe Watershed; Stanford; City of Morgan Hill Urban Growth Boundary Area; West Valley Hillsides Preservation Area; Water Collaborative (Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams).

ECOMM System and All Sites:

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Phase III expansion project would install microwave antennas (i.e., “dishes”) on existing structures and construct new towers and equipment shelters at existing communication sites. The projects would be constructed on sites where such uses are permitted and would be consistent with all policies and guidelines designed to reduce environmental impacts in areas listed above. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.



References


_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

10. NOISE—Would the project:

a) Result in 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) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Comments

10a) Result in 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?


Less than Significant Impact. During construction or installation of the antennas, noise levels could increase slightly over baseline, mainly from truck traffic, crane operations, and attaching the antennas to the existing structures. The noise level generated by project-related construction activity would generally range from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Construction noise would be temporary, with most of the installations occurring within one workday. Construction noise would be very short-term in duration and would comply with local noise ordinances regarding attenuation and times of day construction can occur. Therefore, impacts from short-term noise resulting from the construction phase would be less than significant.

Project operation noise levels would be minimal as the sites would not generate additional noise above existing levels. Generators at the site would only operate as emergency back-up power, and thus, would be temporary.




Less than Significant Impact. During construction or installation of the proposed monopoles or lattice towers, noise levels could increase over baseline. Construction activities could require the use of heavy equipment such as trenchers, jack hammers, backhoes, cranes and tractor-trailer/haul trucks. Noise levels associated with construction activity is generally summarized as an average noise level of all construction activities. The noise level generated by project-related construction activity would generally range from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.

The noise levels created during the construction of this project could create a temporary disturbance to neighboring properties. The project shall conform to the County Noise Ordinance. The County Noise Ordinance (Section B11-152) sets maximum exterior noise levels for land use categories, and compliance with these specifications would ensure that the neighboring properties are not significantly impacted. Furthermore, construction noise would be very short-term in duration. Therefore, short-term noise resulting from the construction phase would present a less than significant impact.

Project operation noise levels would be minimal as the sites would not generate additional noise above existing levels. Generators at the site would only operate as emergency back-up power, and thus, would be temporary.

10b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?


Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not result in vibrations. However, heavy equipment associated with very short term construction activities of the proposed project could generate perceptible vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. The activity most likely to cause groundborne vibration would be the pass-by of heavy trucks on uneven surfaces and the use of jack-hammers during concrete or pavement removal. No pile driving would occur at any of the project sites.

Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors associated with vibrations from typical construction activities or operations at the sites would be less than significant.

10c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?


No Impact. Project operation noise levels would be minimal as the sites would not generate additional noise above existing levels. Generators at the sites would only operate as emergency back-up power, and thus, would be temporary.

Equipment shelters associated with the microwave antennas would house data transfer and switching technology and would be fully enclosed. All sites would use existing equipment



shelters located internally or in standalone structures, or would use established equipment rooms located within existing buildings. These existing equipment shelters or rooms already use fans and air-conditioning; thus, the proposed project would not increase the noise generated by these existing features.

Category 3 Sites:

Proposed:

Less than Significant Impact. The new monopole, antennas, and equipment shelter at the Fire Station 29 site would not increase noise levels at this location. Construction will occur over several days; operation of the equipment will not increase noise levels. The closest residences are now being constructed across Zanker Road from this site.

At the Sierra Azule site, the proposed monopole, antenna, and new equipment shelter would also have no effects on ambient noise levels. Electric power to the shelter and radio equipment would be provided via a sub panel within the existing pump house. Residential uses are located in close proximity to this site. However, there would be no noticeable increase in the noise level at this site once the project is operational; thus, the impacts would be less than significant.

Future Sites:

Less than Significant Impact. The possible future project at the Mount Chual site includes the replacement of the existing tower with a self-supporting tower and an installation of a new antenna. The existing equipment shelter would house any additional fans and air conditioning equipment, which would not result in noise levels that would be substantial. Furthermore, the site is remote, located on the top of a hill bordered by densely vegetated open space lands. There are other similar communication installations on the site, with no proximate sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts at this site would be less than significant.

The proposed changes at the Black Mountain site include removal of the existing wooden monopole towers and installation of a new lattice tower to replace them. A new microwave antenna would be installed on the new tower. A new equipment shelter would replace the existing shelter, and would be similar in size. The replacement tower, new antenna, and replacement equipment shelter would not result in a net increase of noise levels. Furthermore, the site is remote, with no sensitive receptors in proximity of the site. Therefore, impacts at this site would be less than significant.

The proposed changes at the Dahl Water Tank site include construction of a new monopole with a new antenna. Equipment associated with the project would be located inside the existing shelter. Therefore, although the site is in close proximity to residential uses, there would be no increase in noise levels from the project once it is operational, and impacts at this site would be less than significant.

The proposed project would replace the existing lattice tower with a monopole at the Seven Springs county Fire Station site. Two new antennas would be installed on the new monopole, and



a new equipment shelter would be constructed. Train tracks run along the site’s western edge, with a small neighborhood park and residential uses beyond. However, once the project is operational no net increase in noise levels would be experienced at this location, so impacts to this site would be less than significant.

The possible future project at the Palo Alto Public Works site would remove the existing antenna and towers and replace them with a monopole, likely adjacent to and just north of the northernmost building. The existing antennas would be relocated to the new monopole, on which a new microwave antenna would also be installed. The existing equipment room, already containing a fan and air-conditioning system, would house equipment associated with the project. Wetlands abut three sides of the site, and a roadway is located along its western border. Therefore, no sensitive noise receptors would be noticeable affected by this possible future project. Furthermore, there would be no increase in ambient noise levels from the project. Therefore, impacts to this site would be less than significant

Based on the above, any noise generated by the individual sites would not exceed noise standards and these impacts would be considered less than significant.

10d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?


Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the implementation of the proposed project would result in temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to construction. However, once operational, ambient noise levels in the vicinity would not be noticeably greater than under existing conditions. No temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels would result system-wide. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

10e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


No Impact. With the exception of the Palo Alto Public Works site, which is within the southwestern border of the Palo Alto Airport Influence Area, the proposed project and all of the individual sites are not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The possible future project at the Palo Alto Public Works site would remove the existing antenna and tower and replace them with a single 100-foot-tall galvanized steel monopole. Antennas from the existing towers would be relocated onto the new tower, with an additional new microwave antenna installed on the new monopole. These actions, however, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels since, after construction, the project would not generate any additional noise at this site. Therefore, as stated above, the



project as a whole would generate virtually no noise once operational and would not expose people residing or working in the area of the individual project sites to excessive noise levels.

References

Santa Clara County Planning Office, 2005. ALUC Land Use Referral Boundary, San Jose International Airport. Adopted December 14, 2005.

Santa Clara County Planning Office, 2011. Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. Adopted May 25, 2011

Santa Clara County Planning Office, 2008. Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Palo Alto Airport. Adopted November 19, 2008.

Santa Clara County Planning Office, 2007. Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Reid-Hillview Airport. Adopted October 24, 2007.

Santa Clara County Planning Office, 2008. Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, Santa Clara County: South County Airport. Adopted November 19, 2008.

_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

11. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project:

a) Induce substantial 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 or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Comments

11a,b) 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 or people?


No impact. The proposed project would not require an increase in staff for construction or operation of the system. No homes or population would be displaced or induced, either temporarily or permanently.

_________________________





Impact




Impact No Impact

12. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project:

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) School facilities?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

Comments

12a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including fire protection, police protection, school facilities, parks or other public facilities?


No Impact. The proposed project would not require additional personnel not generate additional population that would cause the need for construction of new public facilities. Furthermore, it would not generate an increase in need for fire protection, police protection, school enrollment, or the use of parks or other public facilities.

_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

13. MINERAL RESOURCES AND RECREATION— Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future 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 as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?





Impact




Impact No Impact

c) 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?

d) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

e) Be on, within or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail or affect existing or future recreational opportunities?

f) Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the “Preservation 20/20” report?

Comments

13a,b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?


No Impact. The proposed project would not disturb or otherwise impact known mineral resources. Individual sites would install antennas on existing structures or require the installation of new monopole towers within the boundaries of existing communications facility sites. As described in the Project Description, grading at Category 3 sites would be minimal and within already disturbed areas. In summary, the ECOMM microwave antennas would be located to have no impact to efforts to recover mineral resources.

13c,d) 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; or does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


No Impact. Because the proposed project or individual sites would not result in an increase in population to the area (i.e., no increase in on-site employment), the proposed project would not require new recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts to recreation in the region.



13e) Would the project be on, within or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail or affect existing or future recreational opportunities?


No Impact. The proposed project would install antennas on existing structures or require the installation of new monopole towers within the boundaries of the existing communication facility sites. Although two of the sites, Mt. Chual and Black Mountain are in public recreation areas, with public trails nearby, the ECOMM project would be implemented entirely within designated locations that already contain telecommunication equipment, including towers, antennas and equipment sheds, with no trails traversing either of the sites (both sites are gated). No public or private parks would be adversely affected by the proposed project since the project would be limited to the designated sites. In summary, the ECOMM Phase II project would not affect existing or future recreational opportunities.

13f) Would the project result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the “Preservation 20/20” report?


No impact. The proposed project would be implemented within the boundaries of the existing communications facilities sites where such uses are expected for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the project would not alter the sites to a degree that would preclude them from being used for other uses in the future. Therefore, no loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the “Preservation 20/20” report would occur.

References


_________________________



Impact




Impact No Impact

14. 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, 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?





Impact




Impact No Impact

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

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

h) Not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way?

Comments

14a) Would the project 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, or congestion at intersections)?


No Impact. The proposed project would add no new daily car trips to the region or in the vicinity of the individual sites. Total daily trips would be minimal to periodically inspect the unmanned facilities and would be similar to the travel now needed to support the existing communications sites.

14b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?


No Impact. The proposed project would not add a significant number of new daily car trips to the region or in the vicinity of the individual sites. Total daily trips would be the minimum needed to periodically inspect and repair the unmanned facilities.

14c) Would the project 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?


No Impact. The proposed project and Category 2 sites would not affect air traffic patterns as no change to the height of the existing structures would occur.




No Impact. For the Category 3 sites, new monopoles or tower structures would be installed as described earlier. Pursuant to the FCC’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) procedures, antenna structures that are taller than 60.96 meters (200 feet) above ground level or that may interfere with the flight path of a nearby airport must be cleared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The new monopoles and towers are well under 200 feet in height and therefore, would not require clearance from the FAA.

None of the Category 3 sites, with the exception of the Palo Alto Public Works site, are within the Referral Boundary for the San Jose International Airport or within the Airport Influence Areas of the Palo Alto Airport, South County Airport, or the Reid Hillview Airport (County of Santa Clara ALUC, 2009a and 2009b, County of Santa Clara, 2007), the airports within the ALUC review authority. The proposed tower at the Palo Alto Public Works site would not be tall enough to have any impact on air traffic patterns. Therefore impacts to traffic patterns would be less than significant.

14d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?


No Impact. No new access roads would be constructed for the proposed project, and no incompatible uses would occur at the site. Access along the roads would be used by authorized personnel for maintenance activities at the individual sites.

14e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?


No Impact. Each site in the proposed system is located at an existing telecommunications facility or on the rooftop of an existing building. The project sites are unmanned and traffic to and from the sites would be minimal. Therefore, no impacts to emergency access would result from the proposed project.

14f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?


No Impact. There is currently sufficient parking to accommodate maintenance activities at each site. Since each of the sites within the system is either unmanned or contains surface parking on or near the project sites (in cases of fire stations, office buildings, and other occupied facilities), no additional parking is required.



14g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?


No Impact. Each site in the proposed system is located at an existing telecommunications facility or on the rooftop of an existing building. The project sites are either unmanned or contain fire stations, office buildings, and similar types of buildings. However, the traffic to and from the sites would be for maintenance activities only. Therefore, there would be no conflict with existing plans or policies on alternative transportation.

14h) Would the project not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way?


No Impact. Each site in the proposed system is located at an existing telecommunications facility or on the rooftop of an existing building, with adequate existing access to each of the sites. Some of the sites (for instance, Mt. Chual and Black Mountain), are accessed by private roads that are not intended for public use, but this feature would not be impacted by the project. Furthermore, the project sites would not change existing access routes or fail to provide for future street right of way. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to provision of safe access to any of the sites or a failure to provide for future street right of ways.

References

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Antenna Structure Registration website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/index.htm?job=about

County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission, 2009a.Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Palo Alto Airport, November 19, 2009.

County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission, 2009b. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, South County Airport, November 19, 2009.

County of Santa Clara, 2007. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s Land Use Plan Amendment, Initial Study Checklist, September 7, 2007.

__________________________





Impact




Impact No Impact

15. 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) Require new or expanded entitlements in order to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?

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) Not be able to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Violate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

h) Be in non-compliance applicable federal, state and locate statutes and regulations relating to energy statutes?

Comments

15a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?


No Impact. The proposed project would not connect to wastewater treatment facilities.

15b) Would the project 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?


No Impact. The proposed project would not connect to water or wastewater facilities.



15c) Would the project 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?


No Impact. The proposed project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities nor require the expansion of existing facilities as the project would not generate noticeable additional volumes of stormwater runoff.

15d) Would the project require new or expanded entitlements in order to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?


No Impact. The proposed project requires no water service connections.

15e) Would the project 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?


No Impact. The proposed project requires no wastewater service connections.

15f) Would the project not be able to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

ECOMM System:

Construction

Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste from construction activities at each site would be generated and handled at the individual sites.

The construction contractor for the proposed project qualifies as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG), which would allow the construction contractor to participate in Santa Clara County and surrounding counties’ CESQG Disposal Program. This program would allow the contractor to properly dispose and/or recycle the materials involved with the decommissioning of wireless telecommunication structures.

The proposed project and the construction contractor would follow all federal, state and local regulations with regards to the disposal of all materials involved with the decommission of the wireless telecommunication structures for each jurisdiction in which the project sites are located.



Operations

Less than Significant Impact. Each individual site within the ECOMM system uses batteries and other materials that require special handling and disposal. The project is identified as a small quantity handler and transporter of universal waste construction. Therefore, the construction contractor has developed a Universal Waste Management Policy that establishes the requirements for managing, transporting and handling of batteries designated as universal waste.


Construction

No Impact. Category 2 sites involve either the placement of microwave antennas on existing structures or the possibility of doing so in the future after designs are developed for each of the Category 2 “Possible Future Sites.” In either case, these sites would not generate construction waste such as removed antennas or structure mounts.

Operations

Less than Significant Impact. Category 2 sites may also store, use, and replace batteries as part of the system operations. Management, transport, and disposal of waste batteries would be in accordance with the construction contractor’s Universal Waste Management Policy described above.


Construction

Less than Significant Impact. Category 3 sites involve the placement of new antennas on new monopoles or towers as well as construction of new equipment shelters or the possibility of doing so in the future after designs are developed for each of the Category 3 “Possible Future Sites.” All dismantling and disposal of existing towers or equipment shelters would be conducted in accordance with the construction contractor’s CESQG disposal program requirements. This would ensure that any impacts related to construction activities at Category 3 sites would be less than significant.

Operations

Less than Significant Impact. Category 3 sites may also store, use, and replace batteries as part of the system operations. Management, transport, and disposal of waste batteries would be in accordance with Universal Waste Management Policy described previously.

15g, h) Would the project be in non-compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste or energy statutes?


No Impact (Solid Waste). The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste or energy. The generators at each site would only be used for emergency back-up power.




Less than Significant Impact (Energy). The proposed project sites would be located at existing sites such as the rooftops of buildings or existing telecommunications facilities where electrical service is already provided through an established electric network. Thus, electricity would be available to serve the proposed project. Power requirements associated with new microwave antennas would be minimal, and would not significantly increase consumption over existing levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Category 3 Sites:

Proposed Sites:

Less than Significant Impact (Energy). Category 3 sites for which plans have been developed are located within areas that already contain telecommunications equipment. Specific energy requirements for each site are described below:

Fire Station 29. Power to the proposed installation would be conveyed from the existing fire station building, which would connect to the new equipment shelter on the site. Power requirements for the system are minimal, mainly used to recharge the antenna batteries, and the project would not significantly increase consumption over existing levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Sierra Azule. Electric power to the shelter and radio equipment would be provided via a new overhead conduit from an electric transformer on the site (next to the existing shelter). There would be no significant increase in energy consumption over existing levels. Thus, the impacts would be less than significant.

Future Sites:

Less than Significant Impact (Energy). Similar to the sites for which plans have been developed, possible future Category 3 sites are located within areas that already contain telecommunications equipment. Specific power requirements for each site have not been determined as the communication equipment has not yet been designed. However, electric power required to accommodate these sites would be similar to what it already used at existing ECOMM sites. The possible installation of new towers and microwave antennas and associated equipment at these sites would not significantly increase consumption over existing levels. At these locations, power requirements would be minimal, mainly used to recharge the antenna batteries. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

________________________





Impact




Impact No Impact

16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number 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 cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative 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?

Comments

16a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number 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?


Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project (expansion of the ECOMM system and changes at each of the individual sites) does not 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, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described in this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment.



16b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative 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)?


Less than Significant Impact. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The project would not be growth-inducing and would not generate an increase in population levels or traffic volume. The proposed project could contribute to environmental effects in the areas of air quality, biological resources, hazardous materials and wastes, and temporary increases in construction-generated dust and noise. Mitigation measures incorporated herein, however, mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated with these environmental issues.

The proposed ECOMM system would not be affected by other projects planned for the region since the individual sites are located at existing communication facilities or police departments. The system has been designed to add additional to-be-determined jurisdictions at future dates. When these future sites are ready to join the ECOMM network, each site would be required to prepare the appropriate CEQA and NEPA environmental document. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

16c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


Less than Significant Impact. The project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the areas of air quality, hazardous wastes and materials, exposure to radio frequencies, and noise during construction. Mitigation measures identified in the appropriate sections of this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment would reduce the effects to a less than significant level.

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase II A-1 ESA / 209451 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

APPENDIX A Background Information (Reproduced from 2009 IS/MND and EA)

Background

In 2007, the City of San Jose prepared a joint California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (2007 IS/EA) to analyze the environmental impacts of implementing the first phase of a region-wide digital microwave interoperability communications network, also called the “E-COMM System.” The 2007 IS/EA included all NEPA and CEQA environmental criteria and considered the system first as a whole and then analyzed the isolated impacts of each of the 22 individual communication sites that were widely separated across Santa Clara County.

The San Jose Police Department managed the U.S. Department of Justice grant for the ECOMM Phase I project, the City of San Jose was the local CEQA lead agency, and the Department of Justice provided NEPA review. The project actions at each site ranged from upgrading radios, adding support equipment and replacing antennas to building new communications towers.

The 2007 IS/EA determined that all environmental impacts of implementing the overall ECOMM network were less than significant and the impacts of constructing and operating each of the individual communication sites were either less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The project has been implemented and the ECOMM private (i.e., dedicated) microwave network now links all 14 of the 9-1-1 Call Centers in Santa Clara County and enables high-speed sharing of dispatch services, records databases, and voice traffic (via interoperable communications, when available) between law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services throughout the County. ECOMM allows first responders to improve local incident response times as well as enables the County to better manage regional incidents.

Proposed Project Overview

In 2009, the Santa Clara County Communications Department was awarded a grant from the National Telecommunications and Information Agency1 (NTIA) to study and implement a second phase of the ECOMM System. ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase II (ECOMM Phase II) would further expand the ECOMM system by linking to additional emergency communications

1 An agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the executive branch agency principally responsible

for advising the President on telecommunications and information policies.

Appendix A

Background Information


networks throughout the County, thereby expanding the coverage area. Some of the communication sites selected for ECOMM Phase II installations were modified as part of the ECOMM Phase I project, while other sites are new.

As did the Phase I project, the proposed ECOMM Phase II project requires environmental review in accordance with the criteria, standards and provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This IS/EA is being prepared in accordance with State of California, under CEQA, and U.S. Federal, under NEPA, laws and regulations2 designed to evaluate and minimize impacts of the proposed project. This document would be used by federal, state, regional, and local agencies to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project on resources under their jurisdiction and to make decisions regarding the project.

Since the Santa Clara County Communications Department was awarded the grant, in accordance with County procedure the Department is the CEQA Lead Agency. The NTIA, as the issuer of the grant, would be the lead agency for NEPA environmental review purposes.

This document extends the analyses in the 2007 IS/EA. However, relevant parts of the 2007 document are reproduced below to provide context and to make this document as complete as possible without the need to reference the 2007 document.

Jurisdictional Involvement Nineteen participating jurisdictions have signed the Santa Clara County Data Communication Network Joint Funding Agreement dated March 5, 2002 and the Second Amended Santa Clara County Data Communication Network Joint Funding Agreement dated September 1, 2004. The following agencies will be directly involved in the approval or implementation of the ECOMM Phase II network expansion project:

County of Santa Clara (as Lead Agency) City of San Jose City of Gilroy City of Morgan Hill City of Sunnyvale City of Los Altos

The following participating agencies were involved in the Phase I project and several will be involved in the Phase II network expansion project. However, changes at these individual sites would be limited to actions that are equivalent to routine maintenance of the existing communications equipment and would normally be categorically exempt from environmental review. Therefore, these jurisdictions would not be required to issue additional permits or grant any additional approvals.

2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code 21000 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines Code

of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., and Section 15063, specifically for preparation of Initial Studies. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations Part 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1500 et seq.

Appendix A

Background Information


City of Campbell City of Cupertino City of Milpitas City of Monte Sereno City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto City of Santa Clara

City of SaratogaCity of Sunnyvale San Jose State University Santa Clara Valley Water District South Santa Clara County Fire District Town of Los Altos Hills

Project Approvals

Santa Clara County Communications Department, as Lead Agency, will coordinate with Responsible Agencies during preparation of the Initial Study to assure that information relevant to CEQA is obtained and considered. Likewise, the NTIA will ensure that information relevant to NEPA will be obtained and considered. In addition, the City of Morgan Hill and Gilroy will administer building permits for sites where ground disturbance is expected.

CEQA Environmental Review Santa Clara County Communications Department is the CEQA Lead Agency for the ECOMM system environmental review. Under CEQA, some of the participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County may be Responsible Agencies, in that they may need to rely on the findings of this environmental review for any discretionary actions they may need to take with regard to implementing or approving their part of the proposed project. It is assumed that the conditions of approval for each site would be implemented for permitting purposes as required by the appropriate Responsible Agency (e.g., design review by a planning commission or similar body).

This Initial Study will consider all of the elements in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G environmental checklist. In addition, the Initial Study will also include the required NEPA elements, as described in the section below.

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase II B-1 ESA / 209451 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

APPENDIX B Environmental Review Methodology (Reproduced from 2009 IS/MND and EA)

Environmental Review Methodology

The 2007 IS/MND considered each of the actions involved in implementing the ECOMM system as a whole, as well as each of the actions to develop each communication site. To facilitate the environmental review of the many individual communication sites, the 2007 IS/MND grouped the sites into three categories that reflect the general level of development involved at each site and, therefore, the potential for site development and operation to cause adverse environmental effects. The categorical hierarchy ranged from actions typically considered to be normal communication site maintenance activities (Category 1) to more substantive actions that could adversely affect the environment (Category 3). The three categories used were:

Category 1 - Replace Existing Antennas at Existing Communications Facilities

Category 2 - Add New Microwave Antennas at Existing Communications Facilities

Category 3 - Erect New Towers / Equipment Shelters and Install Microwave Antennas at Existing Communications Sites

The 2007 IS/MND found no significant effects related to CEQA or NEPA environmental criteria that would result from operating the network. The 2007 IS/MND also determined that project impacts resulted only from the individual and cumulative impacts from the individual candidate sites.

In this current IS/MND, the actions involved in expanding the ECOMM system are also considered in order to identify impacts of the system itself. However, based on the findings of the 2007 IS/MND, adverse impacts are not expected from the Phase II expansion of ECOMM; rather, it is expected that all impacts of the project would be those specific effects that occur at the communication sites proposed for development. To facilitate this current environmental review of the individual communication sites, the same three categories from the 2007 IS/MND are used here. In addition, a new lesser category (Category 0) is added to represent sites where only new or replacement communications equipment would be installed within existing shelters at existing sites, with no new exterior microwave feeds or antennas. For example, replacing radio equipment inside an existing equipment shelter is equivalent to a routine maintenance activity1 and is

1 Such activities at an individual site can be exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing

Facilities, Section 15302 Replacement or Reconstruction, or Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15000–15387, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

Appendix B

Environmental Review Methodology

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase II B-2 ESA / 209451 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

unlikely to result in environmental impacts; therefore, it is designated as “Category 0.” Although it is reasonable to consider that Category 0, and even Category 1, actions are just normal communication site maintenance activities, these actions are included in this analysis because they are a part of the larger Phase II expansion project, and it is necessary to consider the whole of a project in assessing its environmental impact. The four action categories used here are:

Category 0 - Interior Equipment Upgrades At Existing Facilities

Category 1 - Replace Existing Antennas at Existing Facilities

Category 2 - Add New Microwave Antennas at Existing Facilities

Category 3 - Construct New Towers / Shelters at Existing Sites

Note that each category is based on the most environmentally consequential action to be taken; each category may include actions that are included in one or more lower categories. For example, at a Category 3 site, new microwave antennas would be added (a Category 2 action) and equipment installations or upgrades (a Category 0 action) would also occur.

These four categories are used to group the individual sites and these categories are compared to the CEQA or NEPA environmental criteria in the composite checklist to assess the environmental impacts of each component of the Project.

ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase II C-1 ESA / 209451 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2012

APPENDIX C NEPA Environmental Review (Reproduced from 2009 IS/MND and EA)

NEPA Environmental Review

In February 2009, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a Programmatic Environmental Assessment that evaluated the environmental impacts of the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. This document assessed the nationwide and network-based aspects of the program. The programmatic document concluded that environmental effects of the project would be associated entirely with the site-specific disturbances caused by each communication site. Therefore, this NEPA review focuses on the communication site-specific aspects of the proposed project and not on the system-wide effects, since NTIA determined that these effects were less than significant.

This environmental review, which tiers off of the programmatic document and continues the analysis begun in the first 2007 ECOMM IS/MND, considers all of the NEPA study elements enumerated in the Department of Justice NEPA Guidelines, 28 CFR 61, and due to the nature of the E-COMM project, the Federal Communications Commission NEPA Guidelines for radio communications systems, 47 CFR Chapter 1, Subpart I, Section 1.1311. These additional elements for NEPA review include the following sections:

Alternatives Analysis

Section 1 – Aesthetics: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare?

Section 4 – Biological Resources: Would the project be located within a wilderness area or wildlife preserve; would affect listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitats?

Section 5 – Cultural Resources: a) Would the project affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places? b) Would the project affect Native American religious sites (Senate Bill 18)?

Section 6 – Geology: Would the project involve significant change in surface features such as wetlands fill, deforestation, or water diversion?

Appendix C



Section 7 – Health and Safety: Would the project result in human exposure to levels of radio frequencies in excess of FCC guidelines?1

Section 8 – Hydrology and Water Quality: Would the project be located within a floodplain?

Alternatives Analysis An analysis of alternatives for the proposed project is required as part of an Environmental Assessment under NEPA (CEQ Section 1502.14). Alternatives are not required to be analyzed in an Initial Study under CEQA.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Phase II extension of the emergency communications network would not occur. The Phase I network would continue to operate as it does presently, using the system established under that first phase of the project. Because Phase II of the project would not be implemented and because Phase I of the project is already complete, no additional environmental impacts would occur.

Preferred Alternative (Proposed Project)

The primary objective of the proposed project is to expand the ECOMM system by filling in the network already established under Phase I and establishing network connections to additional emergency facilities within the County. The secondary objective is to evaluate additional public safety sites within Santa Clara County for suitability to interconnect with these emergency call centers in the future. To achieve this goal, 10 existing sites would be modified in order to connect the 15 new sites to the existing communications network, with 10 additional existing sites selected to undergo minor equipment upgrades.

As with sites selected for the ECOMM Phase I project, the sites selected for the ECOMM Phase II project were chosen based on the following criteria, to the degree feasible:

Use sites with existing structures that provide microwave antenna supports without new construction.

Use the shortest paths between sites in order to:

- Maximize transmission reliability

- Use the smallest practical microwave dish size

- Use the lowest practical microwave transmitter power

- Maximize the likelihood of available FCC frequency pairs 1 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly

responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. All microwave stations and towers require licensing by the FCC, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 47, Chapter 1, Part 101, Section 101.1 et seq.

Appendix C



- Avoid terrain, vegetation or man-made obstructions on the microwave path.

- Provide higher transmission capacity to the larger population regions on the ring, and provide lower transmission capacity to the lower population regions, on spur paths.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898, enacted February 11, 1994) Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, Federal agencies are to make the achievement of environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian tribes and allowing all portions of the population a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of, compliance with, and enforcement of Federal laws, regulations, and policies affecting human health or the environment regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.

Composition of Proposed Project Area

Based on the data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, the following data was obtained on population, ethnicity and economic status for each affected jurisdiction.

DATA

COUNTY CITIES

SA

NT

A

CL

AR

A

CA

MP

EL

L

GIL

RO

Y

LO

S A

LT

OS

MIL

PIT

AS

MO

RG

AN

H

ILL

MO

UN

TA

IN

VIE

W

PA

LO

AL

TO

SA

N J

OS

E

SA

NT

A

CL

AR

A

SU

NN

YV

AL

E

Total Population 1,731,281 38,138 41,464 27,693 62,698 33,556 70,708 58,598 894,943 102,361 131,760

White 882,547 27,758 24,426 22,250 19,353 24,296 45,090 44,391 425,017 56,903 70,193 Black/ African American 44,840 964 745 130 2,295 573 1,789 1,184 31,349 2,341 2,927

Latino/Black 445,481 5,083 22,298 822 10,417 9,229 12,911 2,722 269,989 16,364 20,390

Asian 514,151 5,402 1,810 4,271 32,482 2,020 14,613 10,090 240,375 29,966 42,524 Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 7,317 88 105 45 393 77 182 84 3,584 437 428 American Indian/ Alaskan Native 8,284 248 661 48 388 362 273 122 6,865 542 608

Income (1999)

Total Households 585,430 15,973 11,933 10,455 17,158 10,813 31,229 25,308 276,408 38,564 52,610

Median $80,838 $67,214 $62,135 $126,740 $84,429 $81,598 $69,362 $90,377 $70,243 $69,466 $74,409

Mean $104,229

Total Families 408,873 9,216 9,773 8,036 14,194 8,618 16,074 14,848 205,906 24,427 32,918

Median $93,072 $78,663 $65,330 $148,201 $84,827 $90,134 $80,379 $117,574 $74,813 $77,189 $81,634

Mean $117,506

Income Below Poverty Level

All Families 6.4% 3.2% 7.3% 1.1% 3.3% 3.3% 3.6% 3.2% 6.0% 4.5% 3.7%

All People 9.0% 4.8% 10.4% 2.4% 5.0% 4.7% 6.8% 4.8% 8.8% 7.8% 5.4%

SOURCE: County: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. American Community Survey Estimates for Santa Clara County, California. (http://factfinder.census.gov); Cities: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) (http://factfinder.census.gov)

Appendix C



Site Evaluation

All of the ECOMM Phase II sites are located at existing police department sites, government buildings, hospitals, or within existing communications facilities. With two exceptions, the project sites are not located within or adjacent to residential areas. None are sited specifically in minority or low income areas. As discussed in Section 5 of the Environmental Impacts section, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for information on any local tribes within the local area of sites where ground disturbance is anticipated as part of the proposed project; no information on local Indian tribes was provided by the NAHC. As discussed in the Environmental Impacts section of this IS/EA, all significant or adverse impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels. Further, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the IS/EA during the 20-day public review period. Notice of the availability and intent to adopt the IS/EA would be posted on the websites of County of Santa Clara, and Notice of Intents would be mailed to each of the affected jurisdictions and agencies for local posting. Therefore, implementation of the project would be in compliance with Executive Order 12898.

Purpose and Need

Purpose As presented in the 2007 IS/EA, the purpose of constructing the first phase of the ECOMM system was to establish a private2 microwave radio network that would provide a digital backbone to link all fourteen 9-1-1 call centers in Santa Clara County, as well as provide high-speed sharing of dispatch services, records databases, and voice traffic, to provide interoperable communications between law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services throughout Santa Clara County. This would allow first responders to improve local incident response times as well as better manage regional incidents.

As stated above, the ECOMM Phase II project is a continuation and expansion of the Phase I project, with the primary purpose to fill in the communications capabilities of the network and connect it to other emergency facilities within the county.

Need The need for the proposed project (Phase II) is to ensure reliable connections across the specifically selected additional emergency facilities within the County and to expand into a more robust emergency communications network. The following text from the 2007 IS/EA is intended to provide a more comprehensive overview of the need for the ECOMM system as a whole.

The City of San Jose has a resident population of over 900,000. Currently, San Jose is the third largest city in California and the tenth largest city in the country. The U.S. Department of Commerce ranks San Jose as the second leading exporter in the country, with $28.2 billion dollars per year in trade. The electronics industry represents the majority of this figure, making San Jose the most wired city in the country. The City is located

2 “Private” meaning there would be no access or use other than by its operators / participating agencies.

Appendix C



within the County of Santa Clara, which has an overall population of 1.7 million. The Greater San Francisco Bay Area, which encompasses Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Santa Cruz, Alameda, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and Napa counties, has a population of over 8,000,000. This represents over 25 percent of the total population of California.

Santa Clara County and the Greater Bay Area is host to a number of high-risk targets as defined by the California Anti-Terrorist Information Center (CATIC).3 Given this risk, it is likely that in the event of a major natural disaster or terrorist attack, emergency first responders from throughout the county will be called upon to respond and support each other. When that occurs, it will be vital that these first responders have the tools and resources necessary to support rescue efforts – in short, they must have the ability to effectively and efficiently share information and communicate directly with each other in “real-time”. In those circumstances, the current time delay in relaying information – from one first responder in the field to their dispatcher, to another dispatch center and then back to another agency’s first responder – is inadequate and inefficient.

Like its public safety counterparts across the nation, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical first responders in the City of San Jose and local agencies throughout Santa Clara County have had to contend with performance issues associated with the inefficient and untimely exchange of information, a lack of inter-agency field communication and unnecessarily long call processing times. These limitations severely and detrimentally impact the delivery of timely and quality law enforcement, fire and emergency service delivered by more than 3,300 public safety emergency responders handling nearly 1.5 million calls for service each year.

Following the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and Columbine High School shooting, the need for interoperable communication and the reliability and compatibility of our radio systems once again surfaced as a critical public safety issue. The historic and tragic events of September 11, 2001, made that issue all the more clear for public safety personnel. “It is important to remember the first line of defense against domestic terrorism and the first response to terrorist attacks and other emergencies is by state and local public safety agencies…local governments therefore must have the necessary tools, including communications capabilities, to protect the safety of life, health and property.”4

One of the major challenges facing public safety in San Jose and surrounding communities is disparate systems – radio and computer systems. For a variety of reasons established long before interoperability was a common phrase in public safety language, agencies acquired radio channels in vastly different frequency bands. In Santa Clara County alone, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical agencies operate in five distinct frequency bands – Low-Band Very High Frequency (VHF), High-Band VHF, 460 megahertz (Mhz), 480 Mhz “T-Band” and 800 Mhz. Most of the law enforcement radio networks are decades old and are not equipped for interoperability functions. On the other hand, fire agencies in the County and throughout the State of California have fewer issues of voice radio interoperability with each other, as they predominately operate in the same bandwidths,

3 CATIC Informational Released to Law Enforcement, 2003–Law Enforcement Sensitive Information 4 APCO President Thera Bradshaw testimony, Sept 25, 2002 before the United States House of Representatives

Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Public Safety Communications, November 2002

Appendix C



have a secondary mobile radio in their fire apparatus for communication with those that do operate in different frequency bands, and widely utilize county and statewide mutual aid networks. Although law enforcement has a countywide Mutual Aid Radio Channel (MACS – Mutual Aid Communications System), a system that was upgraded in the late 1990s to improve coverage, it still requires dispatcher intervention to activate a “patch” between the various bands in order for field personnel to communicate with each other. Time delays in bridging agencies together with training issues rising from infrequent use makes smooth and coordinated inter-agency communication almost non-existent for law enforcement.

It may become necessary, in the future, to further expand the ECOMM network in response to the establishment of new agency offices, changing population patterns, need for additional communication sites, and the like. Any further extensions of the network in the future would be for the same basic purpose and to satisfy the same basic need as those of the proposed project, namely to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the regional communication system and enable first responders to communicate on demand, when needed, in real time, when authorized, across disciplines and jurisdictions, during day-to-day, task force, mutual aid operations and major incidents throughout the County.

Documents

ECOMM DIGITAL MICROWAVE PROJECT, PHASE III Digital Microwave... · ECOMM Digital Microwave Project, Phase III ii ESA / 211284 Initial Study / Environmental Assessment and Mitigated