PGE Telecomm Cat Canyon ND

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
PG&E Telecommunications
Facility @ Cat Canyon
Case No. 18CUP-00000-00010
November 14, 2018
Owner Applicant Agent

ERG Resources, LLC Pacific Gas and Electric Terra Verde
c/o ERG Operating Company Company c/o Halden Petersen
9201 Camino Media Ste. 105 c/o Jennifer Everett 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102
Bakersfield, CA 93311 735 Tank Farm Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 937-7216 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (714) 309-1962
(805) 975-5229
For More Information Contact Shannon Reese, Development Review, Planner (805) 934-6261
PG&E Telecommunications Facility at Cat Canyon
Case No. 18CUP-00000-00010 November 14, 2018
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1
1.0 REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is a request by Terra Verde, agent, for Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow construction and use of an unmanned telecommunications facility
under provisions of the Santa Barbara County zoning requirements for property zoned AC in the
Santa Maria area. The facility would be located on an approximately 2,550-square foot lease area
within a 53.25-acre parcel (APN 101-070-079), owned by ERG Energy Resources.
PG&E is proposing to construct an unmanned wireless facility that would require a new 100-foot
tall steel tower be installed on a new 14-foot long by 14-foot wide foundation, within a new 50.5-
foot long by 50.5-foot wide fenced enclosure. Equipment installed on this tower would include two
30-inch DB Spectra DS4C00F36UD omnidirectional antennas on the northwest sector of the tower,
and a three-foot Andrew PX3F-52 microwave antenna on the southern sector oriented on an
azimuth of 181.2 degrees. The omnidirectional antennas will be an Andrew S-300 mount type, one
located at the top of the 100-foot tower and the other mounted at a height of 75 feet from the base of
the tower. The microwave antenna will be mounted at the 40-foot height from ground level. The
service wattage for the facility would be 120 watts, which includes 4 Tait 450 MHz band repeaters
each having a maximum Effective Radiated Power of 40 watts. The Tait radio equipment is
authorized under FCC Part 90, licensed as station WQVT346, and would operate in the following
frequencies:
RADIO FUNCTION FREQUENCIES STN CLASS
Repeater 1 CONTROL TX 451.47500/ RX 456.47500 FB8
Repeater 2 VOICE TX 452.37500/ RX 457.37500 FB8
The radios will connect to the antennas by means of 7/8-inch coaxial cables. The site will consist
of four (4) channels. The proposed facility would provide radio coverage to an approximate 20-
mile radius to the northwest, west, and southerly directions, including the City of Santa Maria
and sections of State Routes 135, 154 and 166, as well as U.S. Highway 101. The microwave
radio will be manufactured by Cambium Networks and will operate in the unlicensed 5.8 GHz
band with an output power of +27 dBm (0.5 watt).
All equipment for the facility, which includes a Tait radio rack, Sageon power rack with batteries
on a 12-inch cable tray and a microwave radio, would be located in a Jensen Precast equipment
shelter (8 feet wide by 12 feet long by 10 feet tall) on an 8.1-foot long by 12.1-foot wide by 2-
foot thick concrete pad. A Relion fuel cell will be installed on a 4-foot wide by 6-foot long
concrete pad, located approximately 10 feet from the equipment shelter. The equipment will be
powered by approximately 185 feet of underground electrical conductor connecting to the
existing overhead alignment south of the proposed facility. The conductor will be located in a
1.5 feet wide and 3.25 feet deep trench. Approximately 20 feet of new underground utilities will
also be installed in trench. In total, the anticipated grading quantities are approximately 87 cubic
yards. Soils will be hauled to the Cold Canyon Landfill, located at 2268 Carpenter Canyon Road
in San Luis Obispo. Prior to ground disturbance activity, soils will be tested for potential
contaminants.
The equipment would be lit by a 35 watt mercury vapor light controlled by a photocell mounted
on the shelter. In the event of a power failure, a Relion hydrogen fuel cell and 100 ampere hour
battery string will provide standby DC power until commercial power is restored. The equipment
would be cooled by one Marvair HCAC-AVPA24A-2 two ton capacity air-conditioning unit
operating intermittently as required.
The entire facility (except for the extension of the underground electrical conduit) would be
contained in the 2,550-square foot lease area on a hilltop at an elevation of 1,400 feet above sea
level, near the intersection of Cat Canyon Road and Long Canyon Road (located north of Los
Alamos). The proposed site facility would be accessed by an adjoining 12-ft. wide access route
(average slope of 9%) over an existing unpaved private road off the nearest public road right-of
way (Cat Canyon Road) from the gate entrance located approximately 0.2 mile south of the
intersection of Cat Canyon Road and Long Canyon Road. Secondary access to the proposed site
facility would also be provided as an alternative via another adjoining 12-ft. wide access route
(average slope of 4%) over a separate existing unpaved private road off the same public road
right-of way (Cat Canyon Road) with an alternate gate entrance located approximately 1 mile
south of the intersection of Cat Canyon Road and Long Canyon Road. Access to the facility is
secured through a lease agreement between the property owner and the applicant. No grading or
other improvements to the roads are anticipated. Parking for maintenance staff is situated within
the unpaved portion of the secured lease area, and would not result in the creation of a new
parking area.
Minor clearing of ruderal or California sagebrush-black sage scrub vegetation may be required to
create a defensible space around the facility, which involves establishment of a 30-foot
vegetation free zone surrounding the facility. The vegetation would be removed using a chipper
or tracked masticator. Land cover within the 30-foot zone will be free of all vegetation. A gravel
base, which would be ¾-inch Class 2 Aggregated Base Virgin base rock, will cover the interior
of the fenced facility and a 10-foot buffer surrounding the facility to prevent vegetation growth.
A skip loader would be used to install the gravel base. A fire extinguisher will be installed in the
shelter to provide adequate fire protection.
The antennas and support structure would be painted gray by the manufacturer, while the Jensen
equipment shelter would have an exterior of exposed aggregate and the Relion fuel cell cabinet
would be painted by gray. Additionally, the project would include installation of slats in the
chain link fence to provide a visual screen of the shelter and equipment. Below is a table
summarizing the project characteristics:
SITE SUMMARY
Site Size (sq. feet) 3068.25 (gross) 2550.25 (net)
Square Footage 0 (existing) 2550.25 (proposed)
Proposed Earthwork 77 cubic yards (cut) 10 cubic yards (fill)
Height of Structures 100 foot tall tower 10 foot tall shelter
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The application involves Assessor Parcel Number 101-070-079, located approximately 1,800 ft.
southwest of the intersection of Cat Canyon Rd. and Long Canyon Rd., in the Santa Maria Area,
Fourth Supervisorial District.
2.1 Site Information

Comprehensive Plan Designation Rural, Inland, Agricultural Commercial (AC)
Ordinance, Zone LUDC, AG-II-100, minimum parcel size of 100 acres
Site Size 53.25 acres
Present Use & Development There are two active oil wells (API 08301209 & 08301214),
two idle oil wells and 13 plugged/abandoned oil wells
within 1,500 ft. of the proposed project site. The proposed
project site is otherwise vacant of structural development
and was graded for the purpose of operating these wells.
Surrounding Uses/Zone(s) North: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; agricultural
structures, oil and gas wells, single-family dwelling
approximately 0.5 miles from the project site
South: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; industrial storage

tanks, oil and gas wells
East: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; agricultural structures,

some dry farming, oil and gas wells, single-family dwelling
approximately 0.5 miles from the project site
West: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; oil and gas wells

Access Primary access to the facility would use an existing unpaved
road from Cat Canyon Road. Access can also be achieved
from a secondary unnamed access road and gate located
approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Cat
Canyon Road and Long Canyon Road.
Public Services Water Supply: N/A
Sewage: N/A
Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire Department #23
Police Services: County Sheriff
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
Slope/Topography: The topography on the subject parcel is relatively steep and irregular. The
proposed project site would be located in a flat area of the site with slopes of less than 5 percent.
Flora: Vegetation within the project site most closely conforms to the Artemisia californica-
Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance (California sagebrush-black sage scrub). Aspect of the
vegetation is low and sparse within the perimeter of the former well pad. Minimal clearing of the
vegetation will be required to create a 30-foot radius defensible space around the facility for fire
protection; however, this clearing would occur in direct proximity to the former well pad and in
an area that has been previously disturbed by oil and gas development. No other tree or
vegetation removal is proposed.
Fauna: The project site is located within the range of the State and federally endangered California
Tiger Salamander (CTS). According to the results of a Habitat Assessment for California Tiger
Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) prepared for the project (Storrer, February 25, 2016), the
proposed project would have less than significant impacts to CTS.
Archaeological Sites: There are no known archaeological sites located on the subject parcel. The
proposed project site would be located within a previously disturbed area adjacent to existing oil
and gas development.
Soils: The soil type primarily found on the subject parcel is characterized as Rough Broken Land,
Class VII.
Surface Water Bodies (including wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks, rivers,
lakes, and estuaries): There is an intermittent stream located on the southeast corner of the subject
parcel, approximately 1,900 ft. from the proposed project site.
Existing Structures: There are two active oil wells (API 08301209 & 08301214), two idle oil
wells and 13 plugged/abandoned oil wells within 1,500 ft. of the proposed project site. The
proposed project site is otherwise vacant of structural development and was graded for the
purpose of operating these wells.
Surrounding Land Uses: The subject parcel is located near parcels similarly zoned AG-II-100
which contain land uses consisting of agricultural structures, industrial structures, dry farming, oil
and gas wells, and single-family dwellings.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The environmental baseline from which the project’s impacts are measured consists of the physical
environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as described above.
4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST

The following checklist indicates the potential level of impact and is defined as follows:
Potentially Significant Impact: A fair argument can be made, based on the substantial evidence
in the file, that an effect may be significant.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from a Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact.
Less Than Significant Impact: An impact is considered adverse but does not trigger a
significance threshold.
No Impact: There is adequate support that the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to the subject project.
Reviewed Under Previous Document: The analysis contained in a previously adopted/certified

environmental document addresses this issue adequately for use in the current case and is
summarized in the discussion below. The discussion should include reference to the previous
documents, a citation of the page(s) where the information is found, and identification of mitigation
measures incorporated from the previous documents.
4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
Will the proposal result in: Poten. with Than No Previous
Signif. Mitigation Signif. Impact Document
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the X
public or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
b. Change to the visual character of an area? X
c. Glare or night lighting which may affect adjoining X
areas?
d. Visually incompatible structures? X
Existing Setting: The project site is located approximately 1,800 ft. southwest of the
intersection of Cat Canyon Road and Long Canyon Road, in a rural area surrounded by parcels
zoned AG-II-100. The area is characterized by mainly oil and gas dry grazing and farming.
Public views in this area are dominated by oil production-related industrial development, power
lines/poles, and mountains. Views of the project site are limited to drivers passing by on Cat
Canyon Road and neighboring properties.
County Environmental Thresholds. The County’s Visual Aesthetics Impact Guidelines

classify coastal and mountainous areas, the urban fringe, and travel corridors as “especially
important” visual resources. A project may have the potential to create a significantly adverse
aesthetic impact if (among other potential effects) it would impact important visual resources,
obstruct public views, remove significant amounts of vegetation, substantially alter the natural
character of the landscape, or involve extensive grading visible from public areas. The
guidelines address public, not private views.
Impact Discussion:
(a-d) Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation. The proposed project site is set back
approximately 400 ft. from the Cat Canyon Road right-of-way, and includes the construction of a 96
sq. ft. prefabricated equipment shelter with a maximum height of 10 ft., located within a fenced
lease area, and 100-ft. tall latticed tower structure designed with a minimal profile. All utilities
necessary for facility operation would be located in an underground conduit.
The proposed equipment shelter and fuel cell would not be visible from Cat Canyon Road due to
distance, topography, and proposed privacy fencing. The proposed 100-ft. tall tower would be
readily visible to travelers on Cat Canyon Road, and from surrounding properties. All tower and
equipment components would be finished with non-reflective paint.
With the exception of one manually operated security light with a three hour timer, no exterior
lighting is proposed. The project is conditioned to require the leased premises be unlit except for
the manually operated light, which limits lighting to the area of the equipment shelter.
In order to blend in with the natural environment on the subject parcel, the proposed tower has
been designed designed to minimize the profile of the tower against the skyline (see figures 4.1-1
and 4.1-2, below). The siting and design would effectively conceal the antenna from public
views from distant Cat Canyon Rd., and would blend the facility in with existing industrial
development in the Cat Canyon Oil Field.
Figure 4.1-1 – Photo Simulation looking north from Cat Canyon Road
Figure 4.1-2 – Photo Simulation looking south from Cat Canyon Road
Cumulative Impacts: The implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in any
substantial change in the aesthetic character of the area since the immediate vicinity of the
project site is developed with power poles, pumping units and industrial storage tanks.
Compatibility with the character of the area and surrounding development would be ensured
through appropriate scale, form, and finishes applied to the proposed development. With inclusion
of project-specific mitigation, the proposed project would be compatible with the visual
character of the surrounding area. Thus, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable
effect on aesthetics.
Mitigation and Residual Impact:
The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s aesthetic impacts to a less than
significant level:
1. Aest-04 BAR Required. The Owner/Applicant shall obtain Board of Architectural

Review (BAR) approval for project design. All project elements (e.g., design, scale,
character, colors, materials and landscaping shall be compatible with vicinity
development and shall conform in all respects to BAR approval (18BAR-00000-00010).
TIMING: The Owner/Applicant shall submit architectural drawings of the project for
review and shall obtain final BAR approval prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance.
Grading plans, if required, shall be submitted to P&D concurrent with or prior to BAR
plan filing.
MONITORING: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate to P&D compliance

monitoring staff that the project has been built consistent with approved BAR design and
landscape plans prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.
2. Tel-03 Colors and Painting. All exposed equipment and facilities (i.e., antennas, support
structure, equipment cabinets, etc.) shall be finished (or left unfinished to achieve the
same purpose) in non-reflective materials (including painted surfaces) as follows: 1) the
equipment shelter shall be finished with non-reflective exposed aggregate concrete; 2) the
tower shall be finished in a non-reflective grey color; 3) the chain link fencing shall be
slatted. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Color and material specifications shall be approved
by NBAR and identified on final zoning plans submitted by the Permittee to the County
prior to Issuance of Zoning Clearance, as well as on final building plans.
MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall conduct a Project Compliance

Inspection prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.
3. Tel-05 Exterior Lighting. Except as otherwise noted in the Project Description and
development plans, the antenna support structure shall not be lighted. The leased
premises shall likewise be unlit except for a manually operated light on a 3-hr. timer
which limits lighting to the area of the equipment in the immediate vicinity of the antenna
support structure. The light fixture shall be fully shielded, fully cut-off and downcast so
as to avoid spillage onto adjacent areas and shall be kept off except when maintenance
personnel are actually present at night. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Permittee shall
restate the lighting limitations on the construction plans. Plans for exterior lighting, if
any are provided, shall be submitted to the County for review and approval. TIMING:
This condition shall be satisfied prior to Issuance of Zoning Clearance.
MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall conduct a Project Compliance

Inspection prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance and respond to any complaints.
4. Tel-06 Underground Utilities. Except as otherwise noted in the Project Description and
development plans, all utilities necessary for facility operation, including coaxial cable,
shall be placed underground. Conduit shall be sized so as provide additional capacity to
accommodate utilities for other telecommunication carriers should collocation be pursued
in the future. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Permittee shall restate the provisions for
utility undergrounding on all building and grading plans. TIMING: This condition shall
be satisfied prior to Issuance of Zoning Clearance.
MONITORING: P&D staff shall check plans prior to Issuance of Zoning Clearance.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts would be less than significant.
4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural
use, impair agricultural land productivity (whether X
prime or non-prime) or conflict with agricultural
preserve programs?
b. An effect upon any unique or other farmland of State
or Local Importance? X
Though the 53.25-acre subject parcel is zoned AG-II-100, the 2,550 sq. ft. lease area does not
contain a combination of soil type, topography or acreage which render the project site an
important agricultural resource. Prevalent agricultural uses in the area are primarily dry farming
and dry grazing, which could not be sustained on the acreage under lease. Additionally, the lease
area has highly compacted Class VII soil. The site will also be fenced and will not impact any
neighboring agricultural operations.
Mitigation and Residual Impact: No impacts are identified. No mitigations are necessary.
4.3a AIR QUALITY

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. The violation of any ambient air quality standard, a X
substantial contribution to an existing or projected air
quality violation, or exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations (emissions from
direct, indirect, mobile and stationary sources)?
b. The creation of objectionable smoke, ash or odors? X
c. Extensive dust generation? X
County Environmental Threshold:
Chapter 5 of the Santa Barbara County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (as
revised in July 2015) addresses the subject of air quality. The thresholds provide that a proposed
project will not have a significant impact on air quality if operation of the project will:
 emit (from all project sources, mobile and stationary), less than the daily trigger for
offsets for any pollutant (currently 55 pounds per day for NOx and ROC, and 80
pounds per day for PM10);
 emit less than 25 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or reactive organic
compounds (ROC) from motor vehicle trips only;
 not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (except ozone);
 not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the APCD
Board; and
 be consistent with the adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans.
No thresholds have been established for short-term impacts associated with construction activities.
However, the County’s Grading Ordinance requires standard dust control conditions for all projects
involving grading activities. Long-term/operational emissions thresholds have been established to
address mobile emissions (i.e., motor vehicle emissions) and stationary source emissions (i.e.,
stationary boilers, engines, and chemical or industrial processing operations that release pollutants).
Impact Discussion:
(a-c) Less than Significant Impacts. The project would not result in significant new vehicle
emissions (i.e., new vehicular trips to or from the site would be fewer than 100). It would not involve
new stationary sources (i.e., equipment, machinery, hazardous materials storage, industrial or
chemical processing, etc.) that would increase the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere.
The project would also not generate additional smoke, ash, odors, or long term dust after
construction. The project’s contribution to global warming from the generation of greenhouse gases
would be negligible.
Short-Term Construction Impacts. Project-related construction activities would require grading

that has been minimized to the extent possible under the circumstances. Earth moving operations at
the project site would not have the potential to result in significant project-specific short-term
emissions of fugitive dust and PM10, with the implementation of standard dust control measures that
are required for all new development in the County.
Emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROC) during project construction would result primarily
from the on-site use of heavy earthmoving equipment. Due to the limited period of time that grading
activities would occur on the project site, construction-related emissions of NOx and ROC would not
be significant on a project-specific or cumulative basis. However, due to the non-attainment status
of the air basin for ozone, the project should implement measures recommended by the APCD to
reduce construction-related emissions of ozone precursors to the extent feasible. Compliance with
these measures is routinely required for all new development in the County.
Long-Term Operation Emissions. Long-term emissions are typically estimated using the
CalEEMod computer model program. However, the proposed project is below threshold levels for
significant air quality impacts, pursuant to the screening table maintained by the Santa Barbara
County APCD. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a potentially significant long-term
impact on air quality.
Cumulative Impacts:
The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to define the point at which a
project’s contribution to a regionally significant impact constitutes a significant effect at the
project level.
In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed the significance criteria for air quality.
Therefore, the project’s contribution to regionally significant air pollutant emissions is not
cumulatively considerable, and its cumulative effect is less than significant (Class III).
The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s air quality impacts to a less than
significant level:
Implementation of standard conditions placed on the grading plan as implemented

through Chapter 14 (Grading Ordinance) of the County Code, along with standard APCD
conditions would reduce potential short-term dust impacts to a less than significant level.
The project would not result in significant project-specific long-term air quality impacts. No
further mitigation measures are required.
4.3b AIR QUALITY - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Will the project: Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
Poten. with Than No Previous
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or X

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Existing Setting: Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6),
and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human
activities in the United States is from fossil fuel combustion for electricity, heat, and
transportation. Specifically, the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gasses and Sinks (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2013) states that the primary sources of greenhouse gas
emissions in 2013 included electricity production (31%), transportation (27%), industry (21%),
commercial and residential (12%), and agriculture (9%). This release of gases creates a blanket
around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface, preventing its
escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as “the greenhouse effect,”
there is strong evidence to support that human activities have accelerated the generation of
greenhouse gases beyond natural levels. The overabundance of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere has led to a warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s
climate system. For instance, Santa Barbara County is projected to experience an increase in the
number of wildfires, land vulnerable to 100-year flood events, and temperature increases, even
under a low-emissions scenario (California Energy Commission, 2015).
Climate change results from greenhouse gas emissions “…generated globally over many
decades by a vast number of different sources” rather than from greenhouse gas emissions
generated by any one project (County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development, 2008). As
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 and discussed in Section 15130, “…a cumulative
impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the [proposed]
project…evaluated…together with other projects causing related impacts.” Therefore, by
definition, climate change under CEQA is a cumulative impact.
The County of Santa Barbara’s Final Environmental Impact Report for the Energy and Climate
Action Plan (EIR) (PMC, 2015) contains a detailed description of the proposed project’s existing
regional setting as it pertains to greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental Threshold: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(a) states,
Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas
emissions at a programmatic level, such as in…a separate plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Later project-specific environmental documents may tier from…that
existing programmatic review…a lead agency may determine that a project’s
incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the
project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan…
In May 2015, the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors adopted the Energy and Climate
Action Plan (ECAP) (County of Santa Barbara Long Range Planning Division, 2015) and
certified the accompanying EIR (SCH# 20144021021) (PMC, 2015). The ECAP includes a
greenhouse gas emissions forecast for unincorporated Santa Barbara County to 2035 and otherwise
meets the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) for a “plan to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.” The ECAP commits the County to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions
by 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020 consistent with the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (AB 32) and the related Climate Change Scoping Plan (California Air Resources
Board, 2008). The ECAP concludes that the County can meet this emission reduction target by
implementing 53 existing and new County projects, policies, and programs (“emission reduction
measures”), such as an energy checklist for residential building permits (BE 2), energy efficiency
education and outreach programs (BE 4), and additional opportunities to recycle cardboard,
glass, paper, and plastic products (WR 2). As a result, specific projects included in the ECAP’s
emission forecast are not currently required to incorporate emission reduction measures listed in
the ECAP or any other mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Concurrent with
the ECAP, the Board of Supervisors also adopted an amendment to the Energy Element of the
Comprehensive Plan that requires the County to monitor progress meeting the emission reduction
target and, as necessary, update the ECAP.
The growth estimates used in the ECAP’s greenhouse gas emissions forecast were based on the
Santa Barbara County Regional Growth Forecast 2005-2040 (Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments, 2007) and the 2010 U.S. Census. The growth estimates were based on factors such as
population projections, vehicle trends, and planned land uses. The sources of greenhouse gas
emissions included various sectors, such as transportation, residential energy, commercial energy,
off-road, solid waste, agriculture, water and wastewater, industrial energy, and aircraft. As a result,
most residential and commercial projects that are consistent with the County’s zoning (in 2007)
were included in the forecast. However, certain projects were not included in the emissions
forecast, such as stationary source projects (e.g., large boilers, gas stations, auto body shops, dry
cleaners, oil and gas production facilities, and water treatment facilities), Comprehensive Plan
amendments, and community plans that exceed the County’s projected population and job
growth.
A proposed project that was included in the ECAP’s emissions forecast may tier from the ECAP’s
EIR for its CEQA analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. A project that tiers from the ECAP’s EIR
is considered to be in compliance with the requirements in the ECAP and, therefore, its incremental
contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable (Class III).
Impact Discussion:
(a, b) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project would not result in significant new
vehicle emissions (i.e., new vehicular trips to or from the site would be fewer than 100). It would not
involve new stationary sources (i.e., equipment, machinery, hazardous materials storage, industrial
or chemical processing, etc.) that would increase the amount of pollutants released into the
atmosphere. The project would not generate additional smoke, ash, odors, or long term dust after
construction. The project’s contribution to global warming from the generation of greenhouse gases
would be negligible.
This type of individual project’s expected GHG emissions were included in the ECAP’s
forecasted 2020 emissions, and as such, its impacts are mitigated by the 53 emission reduction
measures specified in the ECAP. Therefore, the impact of this individual project is considered
less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
While climate change impacts cannot result from a particular project’s greenhouse gas
emissions, the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions combined with all
other sources of greenhouse gases may have a significant impact on global climate change. For
this reason, a project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is analyzed below under
“Cumulative Impacts.”
Cumulative Impacts: The ECAP quantifies and forecasts greenhouse gas emissions for certain
non-stationary sectors within unincorporated Santa Barbara County through 2020. As discussed
under “Impact Discussion” above, the proposed project was included in the ECAP’s greenhouse
gas emissions forecast. As a result, the project will tier from the ECAP’s certified EIR for its
cumulative impact analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. The EIR contains a programmatic
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for unincorporated Santa Barbara County.
The ECAP contains 53 County and community-wide programmatic emission reduction measures
to achieve the 15 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2020. The County recently
created the Energy and Sustainability Initiatives Division and is taking other steps to implement and
monitor the effectiveness of these measures throughout the unincorporated county. The ECAP
does not require the proposed project to incorporate any project-specific emission reduction
measures or any mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project
complies with the requirements of the ECAP and, as provided in CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b),
its incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable and would
not have a significant impact on the environment (Class III).
Mitigation and Residual Impact: Since the proposed project would not have a significant impact
on the environment, no additional mitigation is necessary. Therefore, residual impacts would be less
than significant.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
Flora
a. A loss or disturbance to a unique, rare or threatened X
plant community?
b. A reduction in the numbers or restriction in the range X
of any unique, rare or threatened species of plants?
c. A reduction in the extent, diversity, or quality of X
native vegetation (including brush removal for fire
prevention and flood control improvements)?
d. An impact on non-native vegetation whether X
naturalized or horticultural if of habitat value?
e. The loss of healthy native specimen trees? X
f. Introduction of herbicides, pesticides, animal life, X
human habitation, non-native plants or other factors
that would change or hamper the existing habitat?
Fauna
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, X
or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare,
threatened or endangered species of animals?
h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals X
onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish or invertebrates)?
Less than Reviewed

Signif. Less Under
i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for X
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species?
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, X
human presence and/or domestic animals) which
could hinder the normal activities of wildlife?
Existing Setting:
Plant and Animal Communities/Conditions: Santa Barbara County has a wide diversity of habitat
types, including chaparral, oak woodlands, wetlands and beach dunes. These are complex
ecosystems and many factors are involved in assessing the value of the resources and the
significance of project impacts.
There are no special status plants, rare plant communities, or native trees are located within the
proposed project site area. The project proposes to to create a 30-foot radius defensible space
around the facility for fire protection in an area that has been previously disturbed by oil and gas
development and grading. No other tree or vegetation removal is proposed. Animals which could
be found in the area include snakes, coyotes, gophers, deer, raptors, mountain lions, raccoons, and
opossums. The project site is located within the distributional range of the State and federally
endangered California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS). For this project, a
habitat assessment was prepared by Storrer Environmental Services, LLC (SES) and submitted
February 25, 2016. The following analysis is based on this information.
Regulatory – County Environmental Thresholds: Santa Barbara County’s Environmental Thresholds

and Guidelines Manual (2008) include guidelines for the assessment of biological resource impacts. The
following thresholds are applicable to this project:
Other Rare Habitat Types: The Thresholds Manual recognizes that not all habitat-types
found in Santa Barbara County are addressed by the habitat-specific guidelines. Impacts to
other habitat types or species may be considered significant, based on substantial evidence in
the record, if they substantially: (1) reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance; (2)
reduce or eliminate the quality of nesting areas; (3) limit reproductive capacity through losses
of individuals or habitat; (4) fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or
access to food sources; (5) limit or fragment range and movement; or (6) interfere with
natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the habitat depends.
Impact Discussion:
(a-d,f) Less than Significant Impacts: The 53.25-acre site consists primarily of California
sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), black sage (Salvia
mellifera), and mock heather (Ericameria ericoides). Other perennial plant species observed
include Coast sunflower (Encelia californica), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and bush mallow
(Malacothamnus fasciculatus). No special status plants are expected to occur in the area. The site
does not contain natural plant communities considered rare by the California Dept. of Fish and
Game (2003).
Aspect of the vegetation is low and sparse within the perimeter of the former well pad. Dense
scrub is broken by occasional rock outcrops on the perimeter of the pad. The pad is well-
compacted and appears to have been surfaced with aggregate at one time. Minimal clearing of
the vegetation will be required to create a 30-foot radius defensible space around the facility for
fire protection, however, this clearing would occur in direct proximity to the former well pad and
in an area that has been previously disturbed by oil and gas development. As a result, there
would be no reduction in the extent, diversity, or quality of native vegetation (including brush
removal for fire prevention and flood control improvements) and impacts would be less than
significant.
(e) Less than Significant Impact: No trees are proposed for removal as a result of the proposed
project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(h-k) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project would not cause a reduction in the
diversity of animal species onsite or introduce barriers to movement of any migratory fish or
wildlife species. Additional lighting and noise associated with the proposed project would be
located adjacent to existing structures, and would require compliance with mitigation measure
no. 3, Tel-05 Exterior Lighting. Any exterior night lighting installed on the project site would be
low intensity, low glare design, minimum height, and hooded to direct light downward onto the
subject lot and prevent spill-over onto adjacent lots. Impacts would be less than significant.
(g) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project site is within the reported
distributional range of the Santa Barbara population of CTS based upon mapping of potential
breeding ponds, as shown on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010).
No known breeding ponds are within the dispersal range (1.4 mi.) of CTS. Only one potential
pond is within this range from the project site. The potential pond is named SISQ-19 and is a
man-made impoundment located 1.1 mi. north of the project site; based upon aerial imagery, the
impoundment was likely created within the last 30-40 years and there were no natural ephemeral
ponds or man-made impoundments on the surrounding landscape at that time that could support
breeding populations of CTS. Therefore, for SISQ-19 to harbor CTS, immigration would have
had to occur from known CTS breeding ponds more than 5 km. away in the northern Los Alamos
Valley and/or eastern Santa Maria Valley in the last 30-40 years. In view of the distance and
intervening topography, such an event would be unlikely. This conclusion is consistent with
results of CTS habitat assessments, upland surveys, and aquatic surveys conducted for other
projects in the Cat Canyon Oil Field (Collins 2008; Collins et al. 2012; Collins and Gaede 2013;
Padre 2011a, 2011b; Semonsen 2007, 2010a, and 2010b; SES 2011a, 2011b, 2015).
Additionally, the project site has soils that are poorly developed and highly compacted likely due
to grading for installation and operation of former oil and gas production facilities. The project
site soils are therefore unsuitable for mammal burrows that could provide secondary harborage
for CTS. Given the site conditions and the history of the nearest potential breeding pond, the
Habitat Assessment for CTS (SES, February 25, 2016) prepared for the proposed project
concludes that the project site had a very low potential to support CTS and small mammal
burrows. The assessment recommended incorporation of Mitigation Measures requiring an
environmental briefing for the construction crew prior to beginning work, a pre-project survey
for small mammal burrows, and the covering of excavations at the end of each work day.
Therefore, with the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not
cause a reduction in the numbers, restriction in the range or an impact to critical habitat of any
unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of animal, and impacts would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
Cumulative Impacts: Since the project would not significantly impact biological resources
onsite, it would not have a cumulatively considerable effect on the County’s biological
resources.
The following mitigation measure would reduce the project’s biological resource impacts to a less
than significant level:
5. Special Condition – California Tiger Salamander (CTS) Protection. In accordance with

the California Tiger Salamander Assessment (Storrer Environmental Services, LLC,
February 25, 2016), the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Provide environmental briefing for the construction crew prior to beginning work.
The briefing should include a summary of regulatory context, species identification,
and specific mitigation measures relative to CTS.
b. Conduct pre-project survey for small mammal burrows and flag for avoidance.
c. Backfill or securely cover all excavations at the end of each work day.
PLAN REQUIREMENTS/TIMING: These requirements shall be printed on all grading

and building plans, and implemented throughout all phases of construction and grading
activities.
MONITORING: P&D staff shall check plans prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance.
With the incorporation of this measure, residual impacts would be less than significant.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
Will the proposal: Poten. with Than No Previous
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X
of any object, building, structure, area, place, record,
or manuscript that qualifies as a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X
of a prehistoric or historic archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those located X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Reviewed

Signif. Less Under
Will the proposal: Poten. with Than No Previous
d. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in the Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California

Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its

discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
County Environmental Thresholds: Chapter 8 of the Santa Barbara County Environmental

Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2008, revised February 27, 2018) contains guidelines for the
identification, significance evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources, including
archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources. In accordance with the requirements of
CEQA, these guidelines specify that if a resource cannot be avoided, it must be evaluated for
importance under specific CEQA criteria. CEQA Section 15064.5(a)(3)A-D contains the criteria
for evaluating the importance of archaeological and historic resources. Generally, a resource
shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the
significance criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources: (A) Is
associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in
our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic
values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history. The resource also must possess integrity of at least some of the following: location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. For archaeological resources,
the criterion usually applied is (D).
CEQA calls cultural resources that meet these criteria “historical resources”. Specifically, a
“historical resource” is a cultural resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources, or included in or eligible for inclusion in a local register
of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1. As such, any cultural resource that
is evaluated as significant under CEQA criteria, whether it is an archaeological resource of historic
or prehistoric age, a historic built environment resource, or a tribal cultural resource, is termed a
“historical resource”.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) states that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on
the environment.” As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance
of an historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of an historical resource
is materially impaired when a project: (1) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner
those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources; (2) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources; or (3)
demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of
CEQA.
For the built environment, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995), is generally considered
as mitigated to a less than a significant impact level on the historical resource.
Existing Setting:
Physical: For at least the past 10,000 years, the area that is now Santa Barbara County has been
inhabited by Chumash Indians and their ancestors. Based on records on file with P&D, no
cultural resources are recorded on the subject parcel. Additionally, the project site has been
previously disturbed with grading and road building related to oil and gas production and no
subsurface artifacts were discovered during the prior ground disturbing activities. 87 cu. yd. of
grading is proposed for utility trenching and site preparation; this grading is limited to areas on
Gato Ridge that have already been disturbed and developed.
Impact Discussion:
(a, b, c, d) As discussed above, no cultural resources were identified within or adjacent to the
project area. As a result, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of any historical resource, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological resource, disturb any human remains, or cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. In order to comply with cultural
resource policies, the development project would be conditioned with a standard archaeological
discovery clause which requires that any previously unidentified cultural resources discovered
during site development are treated in accordance with the County’s Cultural Resources
Guidelines [Chapter 8 of the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual
(rev.2/2018)]. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts:
Since the project would not significantly impact cultural resources, it would not have a
cumulatively considerable effect on the County’s cultural resources with implementation of the
mitigation measures described below.

The following mitigation measures would reduce the project’s cultural resource impacts to a less
than significant level:
6. CulRes-09 Stop Work at Encounter. The Owner/Applicant and/or their agents,
representatives or contractors shall stop or redirect work immediately in the event
archaeological remains are encountered during grading, construction, landscaping or
other construction-related activity. The Owner/Applicant shall immediately contact P&D
staff, and retain a P&D approved archaeologist and Native American representative to
evaluate the significance of the find in compliance with the provisions of the County
Archaeological Guidelines and conduct appropriate mitigation funded by the
Owner/Applicant. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: This condition shall be printed on all
building and grading plans.
MONITORING: P&D permit processing planner shall check plans prior to Issuance of
Zoning Clearance and P&D compliance monitoring staff shall spot check in the field
throughout grading and construction.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts would be less than significant.
4.6 ENERGY
Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Substantial increase in demand, especially during peak X
periods, upon existing sources of energy?
b. Requirement for the development or extension of new X
sources of energy?
Impact Discussion: The County has not identified significance thresholds for electrical and/or natural
gas service impacts (Thresholds and Guidelines Manual). Private electrical and natural gas utility
companies provide service to customers in Central and Southern California, including the unincorporated
areas of Santa Barbara County. The proposed project consists of an unstaffed telecommunications facility
, and energy use is estimated as follows:
Energy Use
Multiplier Project Demand
Natural Gas n/a
(13.7 million BTU per capita1)
Electricity 5kWh/yr (less than one
(7.4MWh/yr/home PG&E; 6.9 MWh/yr/home SCE)2 MWh/yr)
1
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/residential.cfm/state=CA#ng
In summary, the project would have a negligible effect on regional energy needs. No adverse
impacts would result.
Cumulative Impacts: The project’s contribution to the regionally significant demand for energy is not
considerable, and is therefore less than significant.
Mitigation and Residual Impact: No mitigation is required. Residual impacts would be less than
significant.
4.7 FIRE PROTECTION

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Introduction of development into an existing high fire X
hazard area?
b. Project-caused high fire hazard? X
c. Introduction of development into an area without X
adequate water pressure, fire hydrants or adequate
access for fire fighting?
d. Introduction of development that will hamper fire X
prevention techniques such as controlled burns or
backfiring in high fire hazard areas?
e. Development of structures beyond safe Fire Dept. X
response time?
County Standards
The following County Fire Department standards are applied in evaluating impacts associated
with the proposed development:
 The emergency response thresholds include Fire Department staff standards of one on-duty
firefighter per 4000 persons (generally 1 engine company per 12,000 people, assuming three
firefighters/station). The emergency response time standard is approximately 5-6 minutes.
 Water supply thresholds include a requirement for 750 gpm at 20 psi for all single family
dwellings.
 The ability of the County’s engine companies to extinguish fires (based on maximum flow
rates through hand held line) meets state and national standards assuming a 5,000 square foot
structure. Therefore, in any portion of the Fire Department’s response area, all structures
over 5,000 square feet are an unprotected risk (a significant impact) and therefore should
have internal fire sprinklers.
 Access road standards include a minimum width (depending on number of units served and
whether parking would be allowed on either side of the road), with some narrowing allowed
for driveways. Cul-de-sac diameters, turning radii and road grade must meet minimum Fire
Department standards based on project type.
2
http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-47992.pdf
 Two means of egress may be needed and access must not be impeded by fire, flood, or
earthquake. A potentially significant impact could occur in the event any of these standards
is not adequately met.
Impact Discussion:
Predictions about the long-term effects of global climate change in California include increased
incidence of wildfires and a longer fire season, due to drier conditions and warmer temperatures.
Any increase in the number or severity of wildfires has the potential to impact resources to fight
fires when they occur, particularly when the state experiences several wildfires simultaneously.
Such circumstances place greater risk on development in high fire hazard areas.
(a-e) Less than Significant Impact:
The proposed project would result in the construction and operation of an unstaffed
telecommunications facility, and would not result in a project-caused high fire hazard. The
project also includes a 30 foot defensible area for vegetation clearance based on Fire Department
requirements. Because the facility is unstaffed, only periodic maintenance visits would be
required once the facility is in operation, therefore reducing the probability of human-caused fire
sources. In addition, the proposed electrical line to serve the project would be installed
underground which would eliminate the possibility of down electrical lines or hazards associated
with overhead lines.
The proposed project is located on a developed parcel with adequate access. Construction and
operation of an unstaffed telecommunications facility in this area would not hamper fire
prevention techniques such as controlled burns or backfiring. As a result, impacts would be less
than significant.
Cumulative Impacts: Since the project would not create significant fire hazards, it would not
have a cumulatively considerable effect on fire safety within the County.
Mitigation and Residual Impact: Since the proposed project would not have a significant impact
on the environment, no additional mitigation is necessary and residual impacts would be less than
significant.
4.8 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions
such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, soil X
creep, mudslides, ground failure (including expansive,
compressible, collapsible soils), or similar hazards?
b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering X
of the soil by cuts, fills or extensive grading?
c. Exposure to or production of permanent changes in X
topography, such as bluff retreat or sea level rise?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any X
unique geologic, paleontologic or physical features?
Less than Reviewed

Signif. Less Under
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either X
on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or
dunes, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion X
which may modify the channel of a river, or stream, or
the bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. The placement of septic disposal systems in
impermeable soils with severe constraints to disposal X
of liquid effluent?
h. Extraction of mineral or ore? X
i. Excessive grading on slopes of over 20%? X
j. Sand or gravel removal or loss of topsoil? X
k. Vibrations, from short-term construction or long-term
operation, which may affect adjoining areas? X
l. Excessive spoils, tailings or over-burden? X
Thresholds:
Pursuant to the County’s Adopted Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, impacts related to geological
resources may have the potential to be significant if the proposed project involves any of the
following characteristics:
1. The project site or any part of the project is located on land having substantial geologic
constraints, as determined by P&D or PWD. Areas constrained by geology include parcels
located near active or potentially active faults and property underlain by rock types
associated with compressible/collapsible soils or susceptible to landslides or severe erosion.
"Special Problems" areas designated by the Board of Supervisors have been established
based on geologic constraints, flood hazards and other physical limitations to development.
2. The project results in potentially hazardous geologic conditions such as the construction of
cut slopes exceeding a grade of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical.
3. The project proposes construction of a cut slope over 15 feet in height as measured from the
lowest finished grade.
4. The project is located on slopes exceeding 20% grade.
Impact Discussion:
(a, c) No Impacts. The project site is not underlain by any known fault. Compliance with existing
building regulations would reduce potential ground shaking impacts caused by movement along a
distant fault, ensuring that no impacts from soil-related hazards would result from construction of
the project. Liquefaction potential in the area has been determined to be low. Any potential for
expansive soils would be mitigated by the use of non-expansive engineered fill. All soils-related
hazards would be less than significant through the normal building permit review and inspection
process. The project is not adjacent to the coast and would not result in exposure to or production of
permanent changes in topography, such as bluff retreat or sea level rise.
(b, e) Less than Significant Impacts. Proposed project earthwork would require grading of 87
cubic yards of cut and fill for utility trenching and site preparation. The grading and site preparation
would occur in areas of the site which contain slopes of 10% or less. This amount of grading would
not result in excessive cuts or fills, substantially alter the existing topography, or increase the
potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
(d, f, g, h, i, j, k, l) No Impacts. There are no unique geological features located on the project site.
Any construction-related vibrations due to the temporary use of heavy equipment for grading and
construction would not adversely impact adjoining areas due to the temporary nature of the
construction. The proposed project would not involve mining or the loss of topsoil. The proposed
project would not cause changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or dunes, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river, or stream, or the bed of the
ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake. All proposed grading would occur on slopes of 10% or less.
Cumulative Impacts:
Since the project would not result in significant geologic impacts after mitigation, and geologic
impacts are typically localized in nature, it would not have a cumulatively considerable effect on
geologic hazards within the County.
significant.
4.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. In the known history of this property, have there been X
any past uses, storage or discharge of hazardous
materials (e.g., fuel or oil stored in underground tanks,
pesticides, solvents or other chemicals)?
b. The use, storage or distribution of hazardous or toxic X
materials?
c. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous X
substances (e.g., oil, gas, biocides, bacteria, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
d. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X
e. The creation of a potential public health hazard? X
f. Public safety hazards (e.g., due to development near X
chemical or industrial activity, producing oil wells,
toxic disposal sites, etc.)?
g. Exposure to hazards from oil or gas pipelines or oil X
well facilities?
h. The contamination of a public water supply? X
Threshold:
The County’s safety threshold addresses involuntary public exposure from projects involving
significant quantities of hazardous materials. The threshold addresses the likelihood and severity
of potential accidents to determine whether the safety risks of a project exceed significant levels.
Impact Discussion:
(a-c, e-g) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project would result in the development of an
unstaffed telecommunications facility on a former drill pad for oil and gas production. According to the
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), the project site has been used for oil and
gas extraction since 1964. Prior to oil extraction, the area was utilized for low intensity agriculture.
There are two active oil wells (API 08301209 & 08301214), two idle oil wells and 13
plugged/abandoned oil wells within 1,500 ft. of the proposed project site. The proposed project site is
otherwise vacant of structural development and was graded for the purpose of operating these wells.
DOGGR reviewed the proposed development and conducted a records review of all known oil and gas
wells located on the subject parcel. There is one oil and gas well located within the project boundary.
This well in its current condition is abandoned to current State standards and the proposed facility will
not prevent access to the well if future remediation is required, hence the project would not result in
exposure to hazards from oil well facilities.
The project includes a hydrogen fuel cell enclosed in a 1/8-inch thick aluminum enclosure with a
hydrogen storage cabinet that is designed to safely house hydrogen gas cylinders. The hydrogen fuel is
controlled by a normally-closed fuel shut off safety solenoid that is only activated when the fuel cells
are operating and generating power. Multiple hydrogen sensors within the fuel cell enclosure monitor
the ambient air and will shut down the system if hydrogen is detected at a level approaching 7,500 ppm,
or 1/5th the lower flammability limit of hydrogen. Therefore, the fuel cell system would not result in
significant hazardous materials/waste impacts or explosion risk.
(d, h) No Impacts. The Traffic that would be generated by the project would not substantially interfere
with emergency response capabilities to the project site or to other properties in the project area. The
project includes the use of hydrogen gas inside of a contained environment, and the project site is not in
the vicinity of any water wells or water sources supplying the public with water; therefore the project
will not contribute to contribute to the contamination of a public water supply
Cumulative Impacts:
Since the project would not create significant impacts with respect to hazardous materials and/or
risk of upset, it would not have a cumulatively considerable effect on safety within the County.
significant.
4.10 LAND USE

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Structures and/or land use incompatible with existing X
land use?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, X
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Reviewed

Signif. Less Under
c. The induction of substantial growth or concentration X
of population?
d. The extension of sewer trunk lines or access roads X
with capacity to serve new development beyond this
proposed project?
e. Loss of existing affordable dwellings through X
demolition, conversion or removal?
f. Displacement of substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
g. Displacement of substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
h. The loss of a substantial amount of open space? X
i. An economic or social effect that would result in a X
physical change? (i.e. Closure of a freeway ramp
results in isolation of an area, businesses located in the
vicinity close, neighborhood degenerates, and
buildings deteriorate. Or, if construction of new
freeway divides an existing community, the
construction would be the physical change, but the
economic/social effect on the community would be
the basis for determining that the physical change
would be significant.)
j. Conflicts with adopted airport safety zones? X
Existing Setting:
Located within the Cat Canyon Oil Field in the Solomon Hills, the subject property is
approximately 1,800 ft. southwest of the intersection of Cat Canyon and Long Canyon Roads.
The Solomon Hills are bisected by several canyons, the largest of which are Cat Canyon, Long
Canyon, Olivera Canyon, and Foxen Canyon. The prevailing terrain is steep and irregular. The
valleys lie at elevations as low as 400 feet above mean sea level (msl). Gato Ridge, a prominent
feature in the Solomon Hills, reaches elevations of over 1,600 feet above msl. The project site is
at an elevation of 1,408 feet above msl.
Land use within the Cat Canyon Oil Field consists primarily of agriculture and oil production.
The valley lowlands support both dry farming and to a lesser extent, irrigated row crops. The
hills on numerous parcels are used for cattle grazing. Remnants of former petroleum production
along Cat Canyon Road include numerous well pads, facility pads and a system of
interconnecting dirt roads. Utilities in support of current (active) oil production (e.g., pumps,
tanks, piping, etc.) are owned and operated by ERG Operating Company (ERG). According to
the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), the project site has been used for
oil and gas extraction since 1964. Prior to oil extraction, the area was utilized for low intensity
agriculture. There are two active oil wells (API: 08301209 & 08301214), two idle oil wells and
13 plugged/abandoned oil wells within 1,500 ft. of the project site. With the exception of past oil
extraction activities, the proposed project site is vacant of structural development.
The subject parcel is steeply sloped on either side of the ridge within its boundaries. The
proposed telecommunications facility and lease area would be located adjacent to an existing dirt
access road in an area of less than 5% average slope; the facility would be sited approximately
2,200 ft. south of east-west extension of Cat Canyon Rd. and 1,450 ft. east of the north-west
extension of Cat Canyon Rd. The closest residence to the proposed telecommunications facility
is located approximately 2,000 ft. to the northeast on a non-adjacent parcel.
Environmental Threshold: The Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains no specific
thresholds for land use. Generally, a potentially significant impact can occur if a project would
result in substantial growth inducing effects or result in a physical change in conflict with County
policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
(a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project proposes the construction of a
new Telecommunications facility. The proposed facility includes the construction of a
prefabricated equipment shelter located within the fenced lease area. The equipment shelter
would not be visible from public viewing areas along Cat Canyon Road due to distance. The
proposed 100-foot tall antennae support structure would be visible to travelers on Cat Canyon
Road, and from surrounding properties. As such, the proposed antennae support structure has
been designed to minimize the profile of the tower against the skyline. The proposed design
would effectively minimize visibility from public viewing areas, and would visually blend the
facility into the existing rural, industrial setting of the Cat Canyon area.
Adherence to mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1, Aesthetic/Visual Resources, would

ensure that the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
These measures include Board of Architectural Review approval of the proposed project. In order
to further ensure that the proposed facility is visually compatible with the area and not aesthetically
offensive to the public or surrounding property owners, incorporation of Mitigation Measures #2, #3
and #4 above would require strict design specifications for the facility, including painting all
visible equipment in a non-reflective grey color, and underground installation of all utilities.
Based on: 1) careful siting of the facility; 2) project design visually blending in with the built
environment; and 3) adherence to Aesthetic/Visual Resource mitigation measures, the proposed
facility would be visually compatible with the surrounding area. Adherence to required
mitigation would ensure that land use impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
(b) Less than Significant Impact. The subject parcel is located within the AG-II-100 zone district.
In this zone district, telecommunications facilities in excess of 50 feet in height are identified in the
LUDC as a Tier 4(a) project. These types of facilities are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit.
Upon approval of the subject Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project would not
conflict with the LUDC or Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
(f-h) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of a new
telecommunications facility. The proposed project site would be located approximately 2,000 feet
from existing single family residences on adjacent parcels. A Radio Frequency (RF) emissions
report (Hammett & Edison, Inc, March 16, 2018) prepared as part of the proposed project concludes
that for any person anywhere at ground level, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed
Telecommunications facility is calculated to be 0.015 mW/cm2, which is 0.51% of the applicable
public exposure limit. Therefore, when developed in conformance with FCC and County
regulations, operation of the proposed PG&E radio facility at this site would not create a potential
public health hazard. The proposed project site would be located in an area of the subject parcel
that’s developed with a drill pad. This area is not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as open
space area to be preserved. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or
people, or create a loss in open space.
(c-e, i, j) No Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of a new telecommunications
facility. No residential development is proposed. Therefore, the proposed project would not create
the induction of substantial growth or concentration of people, extension of sewer trunk lines or
access roads, or loss of affordable dwellings. The proposed project site is not located within an
airport flight approach zone or no build corridor and would not result in an economic or social effect
that would result in a physical change.
substantial change to the site’s conformance with environmentally protective policies and
standards or have significant growth inducing effects. Thus, the project would not cause a
cumulatively considerable effect on land use.
Mitigation and Residual Impact: Mitigation measures addressing land use are contained in the
Aesthetics/Visual Resources section of this document. No additional mitigation is required.
Residual impacts would be less than significant.
4.11 NOISE
Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Long-term exposure of people to noise levels X
exceeding County thresholds (e.g. locating noise
sensitive uses next to an airport)?
b. Short-term exposure of people to noise levels X
exceeding County thresholds?
c. Project-generated substantial increase in the ambient X
noise levels for adjoining areas (either day or night)?
Setting/Threshold: Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound which is measured on

a logarithmic scale and expressed in decibels (dB(A)). The duration of noise and the time period at which
it occurs are important values in determining impacts on noise-sensitive land uses. The Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) are noise indices which account for
differences in intrusiveness between day- and night-time uses. County noise thresholds are: 1) 65 dB(A)
CNEL maximum for exterior exposure, and 2) 45 dB(A) CNEL maximum for interior exposure of noise-
sensitive uses. Noise-sensitive land uses include: residential dwellings; transient lodging; hospitals and
other long-term care facilities; public or private educational facilities; libraries, churches; and places of
public assembly.
The proposed project site is located outside of 65 dB(A) noise contours for roadways, public facilities,
airport approach and take-off zones. Surrounding noise-sensitive uses consist of ___________.
Impact Discussion:
(a, c) Less than Significant. The proposed project consists of _____________. Long-term noise
generated onsite would not: 1) exceed County thresholds, or 2) substantially increase ambient noise levels
in adjoining areas. Noise sensitive uses on the proposed project site would not be exposed to or impacted
by off-site noise levels exceeding County thresholds. The primary sources of long-term noise generated
by the proposed project would be a Marvair HCAC-AVPA24A-2 two-ton capacity air-conditioning unit
used to intermittently cool the radio equipment located within the lease area. Specifications for the unit
show that anticipated noise levels would be less than 65 dB at the nearest property line. Impacts would be
less than significant.
(b) Less than Significant Impact. The project would have the potential to create short-term
construction-related noise impacts; however, the nearest noise-sensitive receiver is a single-family
dwelling located approximately 2,000 ft. from the proposed wireless facility. The proposed project would
not result in construction activities generating short-term noise impacts exceeding County thresholds. The
proposed project would not cause any significant construction related noise impacts to the surrounding
area. Impacts would be less than significant.
substantial noise effects. Therefore, the project would not contribute in a cumulatively
considerable manner to noise impacts.
significant.
4.12 PUBLIC FACILITIES

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. A need for new or altered police protection and/or X
health care services?
b. Student generation exceeding school capacity? X
c. Significant amounts of solid waste or breach any X
national, state, or local standards or thresholds relating
to solid waste disposal and generation (including
recycling facilities and existing landfill capacity)?
d. A need for new or altered sewer system facilities X
(sewer lines, lift-stations, etc.)?
e. The construction of new storm water drainage or X
water quality control facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Impact Discussion:
(a-e) No Impacts. The proposed project is for an unstaffed telecommunications facility and would
not include any residential development. This level of new development would not have a
significant impact on existing police protection or health care services. Existing service levels would
be sufficient to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would not generate solid waste.
The project would not cause the need for new or altered sewer system facilities. No additional
drainages or water quality control facilities would be necessary to serve the project. Therefore, the
project would have no impact to public facilities.
Cumulative Impacts: The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to

define the point at which a project’s contribution to a regionally significant impact constitutes a
significant effect at the project level. In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed
the threshold of significance for public services. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the
regionally significant demand for public services is not considerable, and is less than significant.
Mitigation and Residual Impact: No impacts are identified. No mitigation is necessary.
4.13 RECREATION
Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Conflict with established recreational uses of the area? X
b. Conflict with biking, equestrian and hiking trails? X
c. Substantial impact on the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities (e.g., overuse of an X
area with constraints on numbers of people, vehicles,
animals, etc. which might safely use the area)?
Existing Setting:
Physical: The subject parcel is zoned AG-II-100, and is not utilized for any recreational uses. There
are no established hiking or equestrian trails located on or near the proposed project site location.
County Environmental Thresholds: The Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains no threshold
for park and recreation impacts. However, the Board of Supervisors has established a minimum
standard ratio of 4.7 acres of recreation/open space per 1,000 people to meet the needs of a
community. The Santa Barbara County Parks Department maintains more than 900 acres of parks
and open spaces, as well as 84 miles of trails and coastal access easements.
Impact Discussion
(a-c) No Impacts. The proposed project site is not located on or near any established recreational
uses, including biking, equestrian or hiking trails. The proposed project would not result in any
population increase and would have no adverse impacts on the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities, either in the project vicinity or County-wide.
Cumulative Impacts: Since the project would not affect recreational resources, it would not
have a cumulatively considerable effect on recreational resources within the County.
significant.
4.14 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular X
movement (daily, peak-hour, etc.) in relation to
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
Less than Reviewed

Signif. Less Under
b. A need for private or public road maintenance, or need X
for new road(s)?
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for X
new parking?
d. Substantial impact upon existing transit systems (e.g.
bus service) or alteration of present patterns of X
circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists X
or pedestrians (including short-term construction and
long-term operational)?
g. Inadequate sight distance? X
ingress/egress? X
general road capacity? X
emergency access? X
h. Impacts to Congestion Management Plan system? X
Setting/Thresholds:
According to the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, a significant traffic
impact would occur when:
a. The addition of project traffic to an intersection increases the volume to capacity

(V/C) ratio by the value provided below, or sends at least 15, 10 or 5 trips to an intersection
operating at LOS D, E or F.
LEVEL OF SERVICE INCREASE IN VOLUME/CAPACITY

(including project) GREATER THAN
A 0.20
B 0.15
C 0.10
Or the addition of:
D 15 trips
E 10 trips
F 5 trips
b. Project access to a major road or arterial road would require a driveway that would
create an unsafe situation, or would require a new traffic signal or major revisions to an
existing traffic signal.
c. Project adds traffic to a roadway that has design features (e.g., narrow width, road
side ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement structure) or
receives use which would be incompatible with substantial increases in traffic (e.g. rural
roads with use by farm equipment, livestock, horseback riding, or residential roads with
heavy pedestrian or recreational use, etc.) that will become potential safety problems
with the addition of project or cumulative traffic. Exceeding the roadway capacity
designated in the Circulation Element may indicate the potential for the occurrence of
the above impacts.
d. Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersection(s) capacity

where the intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service (A-C) but
with cumulative traffic would degrade to or approach LOS D (V/C 0.81) or lower.
Substantial is defined as a minimum change of 0.03 for intersections which would
operate from 0.80 to 0.85 and a change of 0.02 for intersections which would operate
from 0.86 to 0.90, and 0.01 for intersections operating at anything lower.
Impact Discussion:
In this case, project traffic would not impact a street or intersection that is operating at a LOS D,
E, or F, and the project would constitute a negligible fraction of the capacity of area roadways
and intersections. The project does not propose unsafe driveways; impede pedestrian, bicycle, or
transit access; nor would it otherwise cause or exacerbate an unsafe traffic condition. The
project therefore would not have a significant impact related to traffic.
(a-c) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project is limited to the construction and use of
an unstaffed telecommunications facility. The additional traffic associated with the proposed
project would be minimal, and would only include occasional trips by employees (approximately
once per month) for maintenance of the proposed facility. Traffic that would be generated by the
project would not result in significant impacts to public streets that would require new roads or a
significant amount of increased roadway maintenance. The proposed project parking would be
located within the lease area, and out of the road right-of-way.
(d, e, h) No Impacts. No pedestrian, bicycle, or transit access or any other type of transportation
facility would be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project would not cause an
alteration to waterborne, air, or rail traffic. Roadways and intersections in the project area operate at
acceptable levels of service and are not subject to Congestion Management Plan requirements.
(f, g) Less than Significant Impacts. The project would not create a traffic hazard for motorists,
pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users, or affect emergency access. The additional traffic caused by
the project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts.
Cumulative Impacts:
The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to define the point at which a
project’s contribution to a regionally significant impact constitutes a significant effect at the
project level. In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed the threshold of
significance for traffic. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the regionally significant traffic
congestion is not considerable, and is less than significant.
significant.
4.15 WATER RESOURCES/FLOODING

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of X
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in percolation rates, drainage patterns or the X
rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Change in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
d. Discharge, directly or through a storm drain system, X
into surface waters (including but not limited to
wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks,
streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal areas, bays,
ocean, etc) or alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, or thermal water pollution?
e. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water or X
need for private or public flood control projects?
f. Exposure of people or property to water related X
hazards such as flooding (placement of project in 100
year flood plain), accelerated runoff or tsunamis, sea
level rise, or seawater intrusion?
g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X
groundwater?
h. Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
recharge interference?
i. Overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater X
basin? Or, a significant increase in the existing
overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater
basin?
j. The substantial degradation of groundwater quality X
including saltwater intrusion?
k. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise X
available for public water supplies?
l. Introduction of storm water pollutants (e.g., oil, X
grease, pesticides, nutrients, sediments, pathogens,
etc.) into groundwater or surface water?
Water Resources Thresholds: A project is determined to have a significant effect on water

resources if it would exceed established threshold values which have been set for each overdrafted
groundwater basin. These values were determined based on an estimation of a basin’s remaining life
of available water storage. If the project’s net new consumptive water use [total consumptive
demand adjusted for recharge less discontinued historic use] exceeds the threshold adopted for the
basin, the project’s impacts on water resources are considered significant.
A project is also deemed to have a significant effect on water resources if a net increase in pumpage
from a well would substantially affect production or quality from a nearby well.
Water Quality Thresholds: A significant water quality impact is presumed to occur if the
project:
 Is located within an urbanized area of the county and the project construction or
redevelopment individually or as a part of a larger common plan of development or sale
would disturb one (1) or more acres of land;
 Increases the amount of impervious surfaces on a site by 25% or more;
 Results in channelization or relocation of a natural drainage channel;
 Results in removal or reduction of riparian vegetation or other vegetation (excluding non-
native vegetation removed for restoration projects) from the buffer zone of any streams,
creeks or wetlands;
 Is an industrial facility that falls under one or more of categories of industrial activity
regulated under the NPDES Phase I industrial storm water regulations (facilities with
effluent limitation; manufacturing; mineral, metal, oil and gas, hazardous waste,
treatment or disposal facilities; landfills; recycling facilities; steam electric plants;
transportation facilities; treatment works; and light industrial activity);
 Discharges pollutants that exceed the water quality standards set forth in the applicable
NPDES permit, the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Basin Plan or
otherwise impairs the beneficial uses3 of a receiving water body;
 Results in a discharge of pollutants into an “impaired” water body that has been
designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the RWQCB under
Section 303 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the Clean
Water Act); or
 Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern to a receiving water body, as identified by
the RWQCB.
(a-k) No Impacts. The project would create minor amounts of additional storm water runoff as a
result of newly constructed impermeable surfaces, including the tower foundation and equipment
shelter. Construction activities such as grading could also potentially create temporary runoff and
erosion problems. Application of standard County grading, erosion, and drainage-control measures
would ensure that no significant increase of erosion or storm water runoff would occur. No water
service would be required and the project would not contribute to overdraft of groundwater
resources. No waste water treatment service would be required and there would be no contribution
to regional degradation of groundwater quality by a septic system. The project site is not located in a
flood plain or near the ocean.
(l) Less than Significant Impacts. The project could adversely affect surface water quality by
increasing the volume and decreasing the quality of stormwater runoff during construction
activities. However, the project would be expected to generate only minor amounts of storm water
3
Beneficial uses for Santa Barbara County are identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, and include (among
others) recreation, agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, fresh water habitat, estuarine habitat,
support for rare, threatened or endangered species, preservation of biological habitats of special
significance.
pollutants and runoff. Minor amounts of such hazardous material during construction would not
present a significant potential for release of waterborne pollutants and would be highly unlikely to
create a public health hazard.
Cumulative Impacts: The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to

define the point at which a project’s contribution to a regionally significant impact constitutes a
significant effect at the project level. In this instance, the project has been found not to exceed
the threshold of significance for water resources. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the
regionally significant issues of water supplies and water quality is not considerable, and is less
than significant.
significant.
5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES

5.1 County Departments Consulted:
Fire
5.2 Comprehensive Plan:

X Seismic Safety/Safety Element Conservation Element
Open Space Element X Noise Element
Coastal Plan and Maps Circulation Element
X ERME
5.3 Other Sources:

X Field work Ag Preserve maps
X Calculations Flood Control maps
X Project plans X Other technical references
Traffic studies (reports, survey, etc.)
X Records X Planning files, maps, reports
X Grading plans X Zoning maps
X Elevation, architectural renderings X Soils maps/reports
X Published geological map/reports X Plant maps
X Topographical maps X Archaeological maps and reports
Other
6.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC (short- and long-term) AND CUMULATIVE

IMPACT SUMMARY
I. Project-Specific Impacts which are of unknown significance levels (Class I): None
II. Project Specific Impacts which are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less
than significant levels (Class II): Aesthetics / Visual Resources, Biological Resources,
Land Use
III. Potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts: None

7.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Less than Reviewed
Signif. Less Under
1. Does the project have the potential to substantially X
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, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas
emissions or significantly increase energy
consumption, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X
term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals?
3. Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the effects of
probable future projects.)
4. Does the project have environmental effects which X
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
5. Is there disagreement supported by facts, reasonable X
assumptions predicated upon facts and/or expert
opinion supported by facts over the significance of an
effect which would warrant investigation in an EIR ?
8.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

As no potentially significant, adverse unmitigable impacts would result from the proposed
development, project alternatives have not been evaluated.
9.0 INITIAL REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH

APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION, ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Zoning
The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Santa Barbara County
Land Use and Development Code (Inland Zoning Ordinance). The AG-II-100 zoning of
the site allows for the use and development proposed.
SIGNATURE:______________________________ FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: _________
12.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan and Elevations
3. DOGGR Letter dated May 9, 2018
4. Radio Frequency Emissions Report (Hammett & Edison, Inc., March 16, 2018)
5. Habitat Assessment for California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
(Storrer Environmental Services, LLC, February 25, 2016)
6. Photo Simulations
G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\CUP\18 Cases\18CUP-00000-00010 PacificGas&Elec\CEQA\Draft MND\Draft

MND 18CUP-10.docx
Cat Canyo
M
LACO
TRUST
CK
WILLIAMS HOLDING COMPANY
G, LLC
I
HILLS FUNDIN
LAUREL,
ATR
LNA, LC
UNT, D
SOUTHERN
Y, P
GOWING, REBECCA FAMILY
Cat Canyon Rd
O
AV
MAL
Longg Ca
Lon
OFELIA M
Canyo
nyonn Rd
Rd
ID M
ERG RESOUR
VEL
STEVE SOARES TRUCKING, LLC A ZQ
ARIE
UE
GOWING, REBECCA FAMILY TRUST 1 Z, F RUB
RA ALC
NC AVA
ISC
CES, LLC
O LI VIN
G TRU
S T
ERG RESOURCES, LLC

AC GOWING, REBECCA FAMILY TRUST
AG-II-100 ERG RESOURCES, LLC (TX)
STM RANCH, LLC
ERG RESOURCES, LLC
ERG RESOURCES, LLC
A-II-100
ERG RESOURCES, LLC
6
2/23/1
CO
NT
Legend
RUS T
INE
ERG RESOURCES, LLC

NT
TEIXEIRA LIVING TRUST 8/8/83

Zoning Boundary
NTT
AL
A-II-100
OIL
Land Use Designation Boundary
± , JOA
CO
National Wetlands Inventory

MP
EM
0 485 970 1,940
AN
Inner Rural Area

HARL
Feet
Y
PG&E • Proposed Relay Station at “Gato Ridge”
Santa Barbara County, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers

The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained by Pacific Gas &
Electric Company (“PG&E”), to evaluate the relay station (Site Name “Gato Ridge”) proposed to be
located in Santa Barbara County, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting
human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields.
Executive Summary
PG&E proposes to install three antennas on a new, tall lattice tower on Gato Ridge in
unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The proposed operation will comply with the FCC
guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy.
Prevailing Exposure Standards

The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) evaluate its
actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC’s exposure limits
is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a
prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive
FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless
services are as follows:
Wireless Service Frequency Band Occupational Limit Public Limit
Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5–80 GHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2
WiFi (and unlicensed uses) 2–6 5.00 1.00
BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 MHz 5.00 1.00
WCS (Wireless Communication) 2,300 5.00 1.00
AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00
PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 5.00 1.00
Cellular 870 2.90 0.58
SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57
700 MHz 700 2.40 0.48
[most restrictive frequency range] 30–300 1.00 0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called “radios” or
“channels”) that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A
small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky.
Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the
antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some
A8L8
Page 1 of 3
height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with
very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. This means that it is generally not possible for
exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically
very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation,” dated August 1997. Figure 2 describes the calculation methodologies,
reflecting the facts that a directional antenna’s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very
close by (the “near-field” effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the “inverse square law”). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by PG&E, it is proposed to install two dBSpectra Model
DS4C00F36U-D omnidirectional “whip” antennas and one Andrew Model PX3F-52 microwave
“dish” antenna on a new 100-foot tower to be sited on an undeveloped peak* in the Solomon Hills in
unincorporated Santa Barbara County, overlooking Cat Canyon Road to the north and east. The
omnidirectional antennas (one for transmitting and one for receiving) would be mounted at effective
heights of about 73½ and 100½ feet above ground, respectively; the microwave antenna would be
mounted at an effective height of about 40 feet above ground. The maximum effective radiated power
in any direction from the transmitting omnidirectional antenna would be 160 watts in the 450 MHz
band, and the maximum effective radiated power from the microwave antenna would be 1,000 watts†
in the 5.8 GHz band, for interconnection of this site with others in the PG&E network. There are
reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations at the site or nearby.
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed PG&E
operation is calculated to be 0.0015 mW/cm2, which is 0.51% of the applicable public exposure limit.
There are no residential buildings within 1,000 feet of the site, based on review of photographs in
Google Maps.
*
Reported geographic coordinates 34° 48' 13.83" N, 120° 15' 52.39" W
†
Assumed for the purposes of this study.
A8L8
Page 2 of 3
No Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting heights, the PG&E antennas would not be accessible to the general public, and
so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To
prevent exposures in excess of the occupational limit by authorized PG&E workers, it is expected that
they will adhere to appropriate safety protocols adopted by that company.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that
operation of the relay station proposed by PG&E near Gato Ridge will comply with the prevailing
standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason
cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible
areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration.
This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating
base stations.
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2017. This work has been carried
out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where
noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
_________________________________
William F. Hammett, P.E.
707/996-5200
March 16, 2016
A8L8
Page 3 of 3
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”).
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, “Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)

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

100 PCS
(mW/cm2)
Density
Cell
Power
10
FM
1
0.1
Public Exposure
0.1 1
10 100 103 104 105
Frequency (MHz)
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
RFR.CALC™ Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.
180 0.1 Pnet
For a panel or whip antenna, power density S =
D2 h
, in mW/cm2,
BW
0.1 16 Pnet
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax =
h 2 , in mW/cm2,
where BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and

Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D = distance from antenna, in meters,
h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
= aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
2.56 1.64 100 RFF 2 ERP
power density S =
4 D2
, in mW/cm2,
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,

RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
Methodology
Figure 2
Habitat Assessment for California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
PG&E Gato Ridge Radio Reliability Project
Prepared for: Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC

3765 Higuera Street, Suite 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact: Brian Dugas (805) 701-4648
Prepared by: Storrer Environmental Services, LLC
2565 Puesta Del Sol Road #3
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Contact: John Storrer (805) 682-2065
Submitted: 25 February 2016
CTS Habitat Assessment
Gato Ridge PG&E Radio Reliability Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 1
METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 2
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 3
Assessment of Potential for Ponds to Support CTS Breeding ........................................ 4
SISQ-19 (Long Canyon Pond) .................................................................................... 4
SISQ-20 (Olivera Canyon Pond) ................................................................................ 4
Pond 205 ..................................................................................................................... 5
Ponds 705-A and 705-C .............................................................................................. 5
ERG Pond D ............................................................................................................... 5
FOCA-1, -3, -4, and -5 ................................................................................................ 5
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 6
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 7
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 7
Tables
Table 1: Known and Potential CTS Breeding Ponds within 5 Kilometers of the Project
Site ........................................................................................................................3
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map .............................................................................. end of document
Figure 2: Known or Potential CTS Breeding Ponds within 3 and 5 Kilometers of the
Project Site ................................................................................. end of document
Appendices
Appendix A: Representative Photographs of the Project Site .................... end of document
Storrer Environmental Services, LLC -i-

INTRODUCTION
The following is an assessment of habitat value and potential for occurrence of California
Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS) for an approximate quarter-acre site
in the Cat Canyon Oil Field, Santa Barbara County, California (Project Site). The
investigation was completed by John Storrer of Storrer Environmental Services, LLC,
under contract to Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC, of San Luis Obispo,
California. The report was prepared in accordance with guidelines recommended by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for determining likelihood of occurrence of
CTS (USFWS 2003).
PROPOSED PROJECT
PG&E plans to install a new 100-foot tall tower and support building within a fenced
enclosure measuring 50 x 50 feet. The tower will require a 20 x 20-foot foundation
located within the western portion of the enclosure. A microwave antenna, lightning
protector, and a 30-inch Omni antenna will be installed atop the tower. Another 30-inch
Omni antenna will be installed on the tower, approximately 75 feet from its base. The
new support building will be approximately 8 x 12 feet long and 10 feet in height,
situated in the center of the enclosure. This building will house the equipment required to
operate the tower and antenna. A fuel cell will also be installed on a new 6 x 10-foot
concrete pad, located in the eastern portion of the enclosed area.
Power to the facility will be provided by extending an existing overhead distribution line
by approximately 185 feet, requiring installation of three new 30-foot tall wooden poles.
Additionally, approximately 20 feet of underground conduit will be installed within the
enclosure by open trenching in order to connect power between the building, fuel cell,
and tower.
The facilities would be situated within a former oil production well pad that measures
approximately 165 x 75 feet (0.28 acres). Access to the Project Site would be provided
by existing, unimproved roads formerly serving oil production in the Cat Canyon Oil
Field.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project Site is located in the Cat Canyon Oil Field in the Solomon Hills,
approximately 14 miles southeast of the City of Santa Maria, California (Figure 1). The
Solomon Hills are bisected by several canyons, the largest of which are Cat Canyon,
Long Canyon, Olivera Canyon, and Foxen Canyon.
The prevailing terrain is steep and irregular. The valleys lie at elevations as low as 400
feet above mean sea level (msl). Gato Ridge, a prominent feature in the Solomon Hills,
reaches elevations of over 1,600 feet above msl. The Project Site is at an elevation of
1,408 feet above msl.
Land use within the Cat Canyon Oil Field consists primarily of agriculture and oil
production. The valley lowlands support both dry farming and to a lesser extent, irrigated
row crops. The hills are used for cattle grazing. Remnants of former petroleum
Storrer Environmental Services, LLC -1-

production include numerous well pads, facility pads and a system of interconnecting dirt
roads. Utilities in support of current (active) oil production (e.g., pumps, tanks, piping,
etc.) are owned and operated by ERG Operating Company (ERG).
The vegetation within the Project Site most closely conforms to the Artemisia
californica-Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance (California sagebrush-black sage scrub)
as described in A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Dominant shrub species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote
brush (Baccharis pilularis), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and mock heather (Ericameria
ericoides). Other perennial plant species observed include Coast sunflower (Encelia
californica), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and bush mallow (Malacothamnus
fasciculatus).
Aspect of the vegetation is low and sparse within the perimeter of the former well pad
(Appendix A – Site Photographs). Dense scrub is broken by occasional rock outcrops on
the perimeter of the pad. The pad is well-compacted and appears to have been surfaced
with aggregate at one time. A thorough inspection of the former well pad revealed no
small mammal burrows.
METHODS
The study consisted mainly of background research and review of aerial photography. A
field reconnaissance was conducted on December 10, 2015. The survey enabled a
general assessment of habitat character and suitability relative to CTS.
Background research included a query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2016), review of CTS range
maps produced by the USFWS (2010) and the USGS 7.5’ map encompassing the Project
Site (Sisquoc, California quadrangle), examination of museum records (SBMNH
unpublished), and consultation with professional biologists familiar with CTS regional
range and distribution (Collins, Olson 2016 personal communications). The CNDDB
search included the Foxen Canyon, Lompoc, Los Alamos, Orcutt, Santa Maria, Sisquoc,
Tepusquet Canyon, Twitchell Dam and Zaca Creek quadrangles.
Aerial photography was used to search for any potential CTS breeding habitat within 5
kilometers (km) of the Project Site that may not have been previously identified. The
photographs were taken in spring of 2011 and were ideal for detecting seasonal wetland
features such as ponds or impoundments.
A series of historical aerial photographs of the project area archived at the Santa Barbara
County Planning and Development Department were reviewed to ascertain whether there
were any previously undetected potential CTS breeding ponds in the vicinity. The photos
were also useful in confirming the origin of potential CTS breeding ponds SISQ-19 and
SISQ-20 (Figure 2). Aerial photographs from 1938, 1972, 1977, and 1989 were
examined.
Previous reports describing biological resources for the project vicinity were also
reviewed. These included results of biological surveys (Padre 2011a, 2011b) and CTS
habitat assessments for unrelated projects in the Cat Canyon Oil Field (Collins 2008;

Semonsen 2007, 2010a, and 2010b; SES 2011a, 2011b). Results of recent aquatic and
upland surveys for CTS in the Cat Canyon Oil Field are also relevant (Collins et al. 2012;
Collins and Gaede 2013; SES 2015).
RESULTS
The Project Site is approximately 3 miles southeast of “CTS Critical Habitat Area Unit 2”
and approximately 3 miles northeast of “CTS Critical Habitat Area Unit 3” as designated
by the USFWS (2010). CTS range maps (USFWS 2010) show no “Known CTS
Breeding Ponds” and six “Potential CTS Breeding Ponds” within 3.1 miles (5 km) of the
Project Site (see Table 1, Figure 2). Two “Potential CTS Breeding Ponds” (SISQ-19 and
FOCA-3) are within 1.86 miles (3 km) of the Project Site and four “Potential CTS
Breeding Ponds” (SISQ-20, FOCA-1, FOCA-4, FOCA-5,) are within 3.1 miles (5 km) of
the Project Site (Figure 2). Review of survey reports for the Cat Canyon area (e.g.,
Collins and Gaede 2013, SES 2015) and examination of aerial photographs indicate that
there are an additional four ponds with potential to support CTS breeding (705-A, 705-C,
Pond 205 and ERG Pond D) within a 5 km radius from the Project Site that are not
identified on the USFWS (2010) range maps (Figure 2).
Table 1: Known or Potential CTS Breeding Ponds within 5 Kilometers of the

Project Site*
Distance from Pond Direction from

Designation Pond Status
to Project Site (feet) Project Site
SISQ-19 5,828 North Potential
SISQ-20 13,426 North Potential
FOCA-1 15,786 Southeast Potential
205 8,800 North Potential
705-A 13,104 North Potential
705-C 15,487 North Potential
ERG Pond D 15,971 North Potential
*Reference Figure 2.
Examination of aerial photographs taken in January 1938 indicates that there were no
natural ephemeral ponds or man-made agricultural impoundments in the general area of
the Cat Canyon Oil Field at that time. This photograph pre-dates much of the oil
exploration and development in the Cat Canyon area. A July 1972 aerial photograph
shows a number of bermed “sump ponds” in relation to oil and gas production. These
likely correspond to the many small “wetlands” depicted on the USGS topographic map
for the Sisquoc Quadrangle. This map was first published in 1959 and was photo-revised
in 1974. Review of more recent aerial photographs indicates that many of these features

were filled or otherwise eliminated during decommissioning of portions of the Cat

Canyon Oil Field in the 1980’s.
A previous CTS habitat assessment was completed by Collins (2008) within the East Cat
Canyon Oil Field. His examination of the same aerial photographs resulted in a similar
interpretation.
Assessment of Potential for Ponds to Support CTS Breeding

The Long Canyon (SISQ-19) and Olivera Canyon (SISQ-20) Ponds were first identified
as potential CTS breeding ponds by Semonsen (2007). This determination was made on
the basis of context (i.e., both features are within the known range of dispersal for CTS)
and physical characteristics (e.g., extended period of inundation to allow metamorphosis
and adjoining high quality upland habitat). Collins (2008) described the Long Canyon
Pond (designated “A-1” for purposes of his report) as a “recently constructed agricultural
impoundment.” The potential for CTS breeding was subsequently recognized by the
USFWS (2010) and Long Canyon and Olivera Canyon Ponds were designated “Potential
CTS Breeding Ponds” SISQ-19 and SISQ-20, respectively. These ponds were subject to
a CTS upland drift fence survey in 2014/2015 and the survey has been resumed for the
2015/2016 rainy season. Results have so far been negative for CTS (SES 2015), although
the minimum rainfall criterion identified in the “Guidelines” (USFWS 2003) was not met
in 2014/2015.
SISQ-19 (Long Canyon Pond)

SISQ-19 is a man-made impoundment located 240 feet south of the Project Site boundary
created by damming the intermittent drainage that flows through Long Canyon. It is
approximately one acre in size. The berm at the downstream end of the pond is
approximately six feet in height. Historic aerial photographs confirm that the pond was
not present in 1938. The pond is evident in a photo taken in July of 1972.
The pond supports only sparse patches of emergent aquatic vegetation, consisting
primarily of spikerush (Eleocharis sp.). The surrounding vegetation consists primarily of
coast live oak woodland, with an understory of California sagebrush scrub. The pond is
frequented by cattle.
SISQ-20 (Olivera Canyon Pond)

SISQ-20 is also a man-made impoundment. It was created by damming the intermittent
drainage that flows through Olivera Canyon. SISQ-20 is approximately 0.17-acre in size.
The berm at the downstream end of the pond is approximately 10 feet in height. Historic
aerial photographs confirm that the pond was not present in 1938. A photo taken in July
of 1972 was inconclusive, but the pond was clearly evident in a photo taken in March of
1977.
The pond was monitored from fall 2011 through fall 2015. It did not collect or sustain
surface water during that period (SES 2015).

The pond supports no emergent aquatic vegetation. Plant species within the area
formerly inundated included cocklebur (Xanthium sp.) and turkey-mullein (Croton
setiger). The pond is available to cattle.
This section of Olivera Canyon is narrow and the adjoining hillsides are steep and
brushy. The vegetation is California sagebrush-black sage, comprised primarily of
coyote brush, California sagebrush, and black sage.
Pond 205
This artificial wetland feature is described in Storrer (2011a) as follows:
“There is a small impoundment to the east of the well pad that appears to have formed as
a result of a grade cut into the slope. The feature appears to have some wetland
characteristics (e.g., hydrology, hydrophytic plants).”
The pond was surveyed in spring of 2014 and 2015 and was found to support breeding
populations of Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) and Western toad
(Anaxyrus boreas). CTS were not found during these surveys (SES 2015). Pond 205 is
currently the subject of a CTS upland drift fence survey. Results to-date have been
negative for CTS.
Ponds 705-A and 705-C

Ponds 705-A and 705-C lie north of the Site (see Figure 2). Pond 705-A has been
described as a “natural, ephemeral pond” with approximate dimensions of 129 feet x 210
feet (Tierney Consulting 2001). Depth was estimated at 1.5 to 2.5 feet. The pond was
not sampled for aquatic vertebrates in the course of the referenced investigation. Based
on its physical characteristics and context, the pond was concluded to have a “low
probability” to support CTS (Tierney Consulting 2001).
Ponds 705-B and 705-C have not been surveyed.
ERG Pond D
“ERG Pond D” is located in West Cat Canyon, on land owned and operated by ERG.
Three ponds on ERG land (i.e., ERG Pond B, ERG Pond C, and ERG Pond D) have been
subject to recent investigation for potential to support CTS breeding (Collins et al. 2012,
Collins and Gaede 2013). Three consecutive seasons of aquatic surveys were conducted
at these ponds in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Upland drift fence surveys were also completed
in relation to this investigation in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Results of surveys for CTS
have so far proved negative, although the minimum rainfall criterion identified in the
“Guidelines” (USFWS 2003) was not met in 2011-2012 or 2012-2013.
FOCA-1, -3, -4, and -5
These four potential CTS breeding ponds are located southeast of the Project Site at
distances of 15,786 feet 9,216 feet, 11,231 feet, and 13,374 feet, respectively (see Table
1). The background review produced no specific information on these features.

DISCUSSION
The Project Site is within the distributional range of CTS based on mapping of potential
breeding ponds by the USFWS (2010). The nearest known CTS breeding ponds are in
the northern Los Alamos and eastern Santa Maria Valleys (USFWS 2010), more than 5
km from the Project Site. Maximum, documented range of dispersal for CTS is 1.4 miles
from breeding ponds (Orloff 2011). Only one of the ponds considered in this assessment,
SISQ-19, is within that range, approximately 1.1 mile to the north (see Table 1).
Potential for this man-made impoundment to support breeding populations of CTS is low.
Historic aerial photographs indicate that there were no ephemeral or man-made
impoundments within 5 km of the Project Site in 1938. Population of SISQ-19 would
have depended on immigration from known CTS breeding ponds in the northern Los
Alamos Valley and/or eastern Santa Maria Valley within the last 30-40 years, when these
ponds were most likely constructed. In view of the distance and intervening topography,
such an event would be unlikely.
Friable soils in the valley lowlands and adjoining hills in proximity to the Project Site are
suited to fossorial mammals. These burrows provide suitable refugia for CTS. This is in
contrast to the ridgeline and former well pad within the limits of the Project Site, where
soils are poorly developed and/or highly compacted. These conditions are not suited to
fossorial mammals that could provide secondary harborage for CTS.
CONCLUSIONS
The Project Site has very low potential to support CTS. This conclusion is consistent
with those of other investigators who have completed CTS habitat assessments for
similar, but unrelated projects in the Cat Canyon Oil Field (Collins 2008; Semonsen
2007, 2010a; SES 2015). Negative results of upland and aquatic surveys for CTS in
West Cat Canyon from 2011 – 2013 (Collins, et. al 2012, Collins and Gaede 2013) and
East Cat Canyon in 2014 and 2015 (SES 2015) add further support to this conclusion,
although these studies were conducted during years of relatively low rainfall, as
previously noted.
“Potential CTS Breeding Pond” SISQ-19 is a man-made impoundment that was
constructed after 1938. Review of historic aerial photographs indicates that there were no
natural ephemeral ponds or man-made impoundments on the surrounding landscape at
that time that could support breeding populations of CTS.
Lowlands associated with the Long Canyon, Olivera Canyon, Cat Canyon, and Foxen
Canyon do support potential upland habitat. Small mammal burrows are widely
distributed locally abundant in these areas. In contrast, the quarter-acre Project Site
supports no small mammal burrows. This is likely due to the highly compacted soil
associated with grading for installation and operation of former oil and gas production
facilities. Assuming that CTS are present in the Cat Canyon Oil Lease, which to date has
not been demonstrated, they would only be expected to occur at the Project Site on
transient basis during periods of seasonal dispersal.

In consideration of all these factors, the potential for CTS to occur on the Site is
extremely low. Installation of the proposed radio communication facilities would be
short-term and would involve minimal excavation. The following minimization and
avoidance measures would ensure that no incidental take of CTS would occur during
project implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Provide environmental briefing for the construction crew prior to beginning work.
The briefing should include a summary of regulatory context, species
identification, and specific mitigation measures relative to CTS.
• Conduct pre-project survey for small mammal burrows and flag for avoidance.
• Backfill or securely cover all excavations at the end of each work day.
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB). Foxen Canyon, Lompoc, Los Alamos, Orcutt, Santa Maria, Sisquoc,
Tepusquet Canyon, Twitchell Dam, and Zaca Creek Quadrangles. Accessed on
April 26, 2013
Collins, P. 2008. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Site and
Habitat Assessment for the Williams Holding Well Number 4 Site (APN 101-
070-006) in the East Cat Canyon Oil Field, Cat Canyon, Santa Barbara County,
California. Prepared for Greka Oil and Gas, Inc. November 10.
Collins, P. W., P. Gaede, and V. Semonsen. 2012. Results of Drift Fence and Aquatic
Surveys for California Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) and other
Special-Status Amphibians at Five Wetlands on the ERG West Cat Canyon Lease
in Northern Santa Barbara County, California. Prepared for ERG Operating
Company LLC, Santa Maria, CA. 66 pp. [June 14, 2012]
Collins, P and P. Gaede. 2013. Results of Drift Fence and Aquatic Surveys for California
Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) and other Special Status
Amphibians on the ERG West Cat Canyon Lease in Northern Santa Barbara
County, California. Prepared for ERG Operating Company LLC. June 3.
Orloff, S.G. 2011. Movement patterns and migration distances in an upland population of
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 6:266-276.
Padre Associates, Inc. 2011a. Cat Canyon Oil and Gas Field, East Area - Two-
dimensional Seismic Test Plan Project Description. Prepared for Aera Energy,
LLC. May 2011.
Padre Associates, Inc. 2011b. Biological Resources Report for the Aera Energy LLC.
Two-dimensional Seismic Survey Project within the Cat Canyon Oil Field, Santa
Barbara County, California. Prepared for Aera Energy, LLC. May 2011.

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Department of Vertebrate Zoology.

Unpublished sight and specimen records.
Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation
Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California.
Semonsen, V. 2007. Initial Field Assessment for California Tiger Salamanders
(Ambystoma californiense) – Aera East Cat Canyon Oil and Gas Fields. Letter
report to B. Buelow, URS Corporation. January 22, 2007.
Semonsen, V. 2010a. Initial Field Assessment for California Tiger Salamanders
(Ambystoma californiense) - ERG Cat Canyon Redevelopment Project. Letter
report to J. Fox, Tracer Environmental. February 15, 2010.
Semonsen, V. 2010b. Addendum Letter for California Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma
californiense) - ERG Cat Canyon (Fleisher/Bonetti) Redevelopment Project.
December 17, 2010.
Storrer Environmental Services. 2011a. Site Assessment for California Tiger Salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) – Aera East Cat Canyon Exploration Plan, Santa
Barbara County, California. Prepared for Padre Associates, San Luis Obispo,
California. August 21.
Storrer Environmental Services. 2011b. Site Assessment for California Tiger Salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) – Aera East Cat Canyon Two-dimensional Seismic
Test Plan, Santa Barbara County, California. Prepared for Padre Associates, San
Luis Obispo, California. September 8.
Storrer Environmental Services, LLC. 2015. California Tiger Salamander Survey Results
2014/2015 - Aera, LLC East Cat Canyon Oil Field Re-development Project -
Santa Barbara County, California. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. September.
Tierney Consulting. 2001. Biological Assessment – Wickenden Ranch Lot Line
Adjustment, Santa Barbara County, California. Prepared for Penfield & Smith
Engineers and Surveyors. September 15.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment
and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the
California Tiger Salamander. October.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office GIS.
California Tiger Salamander Pond Habitats – Northern Area. July.
Personal Communications
Collins, P. Curator of Vertebrate Zoology, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, California. Email transmittals with J. Storrer on February 21 and
22, 2016.

Olson, T. Professional Biologist, Lompoc, California. Conversation with J. Storrer on

February 19, 2016.

FIGURES
Storrer Environmental Services, LLC

r:\projects\storrer\aera-cat canyon\a-aera-cat-canyon-figure1.mxd
Project Site
0
µ Feet
20,000 40,000
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, iPC, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND: Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and the GIS User
Project Site Community
Terra Solutions 2565 Puesta del Sol #3

777 Mutsuhito Avenue Santa Barbara, CA. 93105
Project Site and Vicinity Figure 1 December 29, 2015
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 (805) 682-2065 California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment
(805) 782-0969 www.storrerenvironmental.com PG&E Gato Ridge Radio Reliability Project
r:\projects\storrer\aera-cat canyon\a-aera-cat-canyon-figure1.mxd
ERG Pond B
705-C
SISQ-20
ERG Pond C ERG Pond D
SISQ-21
205 705-A
SISQ-19
Project Site
SISQ-5
SISQ-4 FOCA-3
FOCA-4
SISQ-3w
SISQ-3e
SISQ-2
FOCA-1
µ
SISQ-1 FOCA-5
LEGEND:
SISQ-13
Feet
3 Kilometer Radius from Project Site 0 5,000 10,000
5 Kilometer Radius from Project Site
Known CTS Breeding Pool Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Potential CTS Breeding Pool Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Known and Potential Breeding Ponds within

Terra Solutions 2565 Puesta del Sol #3
3 and 5 Kilometer Radius from Project Site Figure 2 February 11, 2016
California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment
777 Mutsuhito Avenue Santa Barbara, CA. 93105
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
PG&E Gato Ridge Radio Reliability Project
(805) 682-2065
(805) 782-0969 www.storrerenvironmental.com
APPENDIX A
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE

Project Site – Aspect Northeast (December 10, 2015)

Project Site – Aspect Southwest (December 10, 2015)

PGE Telecomm Cat Canyon ND

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PGE Telecomm Cat Canyon ND

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Owner Applicant Agent

1.0 REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION

2.1 Site Information

South: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; industrial storage

East: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; agricultural structures,

West: Grazing land (dry), AG-II-100; oil and gas wells

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST

Reviewed Under Previous Document: The analysis contained in a previously adopted/certified

4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES

County Environmental Thresholds. The County’s Visual Aesthetics Impact Guidelines

Mitigation and Residual Impact:

1. Aest-04 BAR Required. The Owner/Applicant shall obtain Board of Architectural

MONITORING: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate to P&D compliance

MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall conduct a Project Compliance

MONITORING: P&D compliance monitoring staff shall conduct a Project Compliance

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3a AIR QUALITY

County Environmental Threshold:

compounds (ROC) from motor vehicle trips only;

 not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air

Short-Term Construction Impacts. Project-related construction activities would require grading

Mitigation and Residual Impact:

Implementation of standard conditions placed on the grading plan as implemented

4.3b AIR QUALITY - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or X

Environmental Threshold: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(a) states,

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Less than Reviewed

Regulatory – County Environmental Thresholds: Santa Barbara County’s Environmental Thresholds

Mitigation and Residual Impact:

5. Special Condition – California Tiger Salamander (CTS) Protection. In accordance with

PLAN REQUIREMENTS/TIMING: These requirements shall be printed on all grading

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Less than Reviewed

1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California

2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its

County Environmental Thresholds: Chapter 8 of the Santa Barbara County Environmental

Mitigation and Residual Impact:

4.7 FIRE PROTECTION

(a-e) Less than Significant Impact:

4.8 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES

Less than Reviewed

4.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET

4.10 LAND USE

Less than Reviewed

Adherence to mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1, Aesthetic/Visual Resources, would

Setting/Threshold: Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound which is measured on

4.12 PUBLIC FACILITIES

Cumulative Impacts: The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to

Mitigation and Residual Impact: No impacts are identified. No mitigation is necessary.

Less than Reviewed

a. The addition of project traffic to an intersection increases the volume to capacity

LEVEL OF SERVICE INCREASE IN VOLUME/CAPACITY

d. Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersection(s) capacity

4.15 WATER RESOURCES/FLOODING

Water Resources Thresholds: A project is determined to have a significant effect on water

Cumulative Impacts: The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to

5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES

5.2 Comprehensive Plan:

5.3 Other Sources:

SIGNATURE:______________________ FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: _